I apologize if this has been asked before, but I couldn't find an answer with a quick search.
Are golems harmed by element damage from weapon runes per the harmed by X rules of golem antimagic? For example, the iron golem is harmed by acid and takes 6d10 acid damage or 2d8 acid damage from area of magic and persistent damage if the source was magical. If I hit an iron golem with a weapon that has the corrosive rune, does it take 6d10 acid damage due to the rune or simply the standard 1d6 acid damage? I assume since the rune has the magical trait the golem would take the 6d10 damage, but I was looking for clarification in case I'm misinterpreting this.
Thanks in advance.
So the corrosive rune is listed as having the magical trait.
Golem antimagic specifically mentions "any magic of this type". I would consider the corrosive rune which has acid and magical traits to be magic of this type.
If they meant only spells they didn't word the golem antimagic ability well.
Interestingly though, it seems like you wouldn't get the bonus damage from Striking runes, since they have the magic trait and the golem would be immune to them.
I'm unclear whether or not potency runes would give you the attack bonus. I think they probably would.
And I think that Striking runes not working probably isn't intended, but if corrosive rune activates the harmed aspect of golem antimagic, then I have to imagine that striking runes don't function against them.
My first instinct would be no for the reasons Claxon mentioned. Runes are magical, but I'm not sure they're intended to be magical effects or abilities in the way golem antimagic is meant to interact with. Otheriwse magical weapons that lack the correct elemental rune become ineffective against them and that definitely feels unintended.
Claxon wrote: So the corrosive rune is listed as having the magical trait.
Golem antimagic specifically mentions "any magic of this type". I would consider the corrosive rune which has acid and magical traits to be magic of this type.
If they meant only spells they didn't word the golem antimagic ability well.
Interestingly though, it seems like you wouldn't get the bonus damage from Striking runes, since they have the magic trait and the golem would be immune to them.
I'm unclear whether or not potency runes would give you the attack bonus. I think they probably would.
And I think that Striking runes not working probably isn't intended, but if corrosive rune activates the harmed aspect of golem antimagic, then I have to imagine that striking runes don't function against them.
So here's part of what the Bestiary says about Golem Antimagic:
Quote: 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. So I would rule that Golem Antimagic applies to spells, but not all magic items. Ruling otherwise leads to odd rules interactions, as Claxon outlined.
"Magical abilities" is precisely the vaguery that creates the problem.
What are magical abilities? Are they things that have the magic tag? If so, then Striking rune doesn't work but Corrosive runes get extra damage.
If it doesn't include magical items, then striking works, but corrosive will only do regular damage.
I think the second is probably better balanced, as a party who finds that their magical weapons don't work unless they have the proper damage rune is going to be SOL! Between DR and no weapon dice scaling the golem will probably kill the party. But it's also less interesting.
And the golem ability probably needs to be re-written to clarify.
Claxon wrote: "Magical abilities" is precisely the vaguery that creates the problem.
What are magical abilities? Are they things that have the magic tag? If so, then Striking rune doesn't work but Corrosive runes get extra damage.
If it doesn't include magical items, then striking works, but corrosive will only do regular damage.
I think the second is probably better balanced, as a party who finds that their magical weapons don't work unless they have the proper damage rune is going to be SOL! Between DR and no weapon dice scaling the golem will probably kill the party. But it's also less interesting.
And the golem ability probably needs to be re-written to clarify.
I expect that it is meant to be spells + spell like abilities (but since we lack the sp tag we got a broader and less defined "magic abilities")
This seems to be supported by the bestiary when it talks about abilities.
If it's only spells & magical abilities, it wouldn't necessarily apply to everything with the magic trait.
Weapons seem the biggest "magic, but not an ability" factor. If Golem Antimagic were applied to weapons, it would apply to your whole Strike (which has the magic trait, not only the Runes portion), making Golems completely immune. That'd be absurd, of course.
I'm on the fence about the non-Striking Runes.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Endertheldon wrote: I apologize if this has been asked before, but I couldn't find an answer with a quick search.
Are golems harmed by element damage from weapon runes per the harmed by X rules of golem antimagic? For example, the iron golem is harmed by acid and takes 6d10 acid damage or 2d8 acid damage from area of magic and persistent damage if the source was magical. If I hit an iron golem with a weapon that has the corrosive rune, does it take 6d10 acid damage due to the rune or simply the standard 1d6 acid damage? I assume since the rune has the magical trait the golem would take the 6d10 damage, but I was looking for clarification in case I'm misinterpreting this.
Thanks in advance.
The way I think it is supposed to work:
Golems are immune to magic except for the specific types of magic listed. That is acid in the case of iron golems.
So ignore the damge the corrosive rune would normally do, instead on a hit it would do 10d6 acid damage. This would still go through the Golems Resistance separately to the weapon damage, as the Resistance is a separate defense from the antimagic. But the Resistance is only against physical damage for an iron golem, so in this case the Resistance doesn't apply.
Striking Runes modify the weapons damage die, so they don't directly affect the Golem, so the Golems Anti Magic is just not relevant. But of course The Golems Resistance still is.
If you disagree, then you have to worry about your own magical armour in defense versus the Golem, and your own spells such as Heroism on skill modifiers used against the Golen - this way lies madness.
Runes are Items, not Spells or Abilities. I don't think there's much evidence that anti magic affects them at all.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Aratorin wrote: Runes are Items, not Spells or Abilities. I don't think there's much evidence that anti magic affects them at all. Well, except for the spell antimagic ;) :p
Thanks for the responses everyone! At least it seems I'm not the only one that finds the golem antimagic could be clarified a little better. I think for the sake of keeping things simple and easy to manage I will likely treat weapon runes as not magic damage for the purposes of golem antimagic until there is an official clarification, if ever, by Paizo.
On a similar, but somewhat tangential note, what about Dragon Instinct barbarians? Their Rage ability gains the Arcane trait when they use it for extra energy damage, so it's magical. Would a cold-type Dragon barbarian do extra damage to a clay golem, slow a flesh golem, and deal no cold damage to an iron golem?
Sober Caydenite wrote: On a similar, but somewhat tangential note, what about Dragon Instinct barbarians? Their Rage ability gains the Arcane trait when they use it for extra energy damage, so it's magical. Would a cold-type Dragon barbarian do extra damage to a clay golem, slow a flesh golem, and deal no cold damage to an iron golem? I would say yes, it is an ability, the ability is magical.
The Gleeful Grognard wrote: Sober Caydenite wrote: On a similar, but somewhat tangential note, what about Dragon Instinct barbarians? Their Rage ability gains the Arcane trait when they use it for extra energy damage, so it's magical. Would a cold-type Dragon barbarian do extra damage to a clay golem, slow a flesh golem, and deal no cold damage to an iron golem? I would say yes, it is an ability, the ability is magical. I would say no. It's an ability targeting you only. Like Magic Weapon or Enlarge. The damage is still inflicted by a Strike, which is no magical ability.
Imo, Magical abilities should be anything with the magical trait, or even stuff linked to magic ( like arcane, divine, primal, occult traits).
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
An argument for weapon runes applying even if they would be immune to them as magic abilities is that a weapon rune doesn't affect the golem. Most like striking and potency runes only alter the weapon in some way to make it more effective. Increasing the damage and accuracy of the weapon only affects the creature indirectly, so maybe that would be enough to avoid having it be negated.
But if a weapon rune allowed the use of an ability at the expenditure of actions/reactions/free-actions, like casting a fireball from a magic sword, then that should definitely be ineffective.
I think the issue is less what the rune effects and more whether or not an attack with a magical weapon counts as magical.
This is relevant both for golems but also things like ghosts, who get their resistances doubled against nonmagical sources. Although I think intent is that ghosts are supposed to treat magical weapon attacks like magic and golems aren't which makes it even muddier.
Squiggit wrote: I think the issue is less what the rune effects and more whether or not an attack with a magical weapon counts as magical.
This is relevant both for golems but also things like ghosts, who get their resistances doubled against nonmagical sources. Although I think intent is that ghosts are supposed to treat magical weapon attacks like magic and golems aren't which makes it even muddier.
Golem Antimagic specifies spells and abilities.
So while a Strike w/ a magic weapon has the magic trait (and would bypass Resistance Physical (except magic)) it isn't an ability per se.
So what qualifies something as an ability in game terms?
I don't know.
At the definition's loosest, it leads to absurdity, yet also at its most rigorous.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Have we gotten any more evidence on this? My current inclination is that golems get effected by weapon runes just like any other creature. Otherwise fights with them get real wacky.
No, we don't have more evidence. We also don't need it, as the text itself is plenty clear that golems aren't immune to weapon property runes, and that a rune with the appropriate tag will trigger their special damage rating because unlike immunity that is tied to spells and magical abilities, the damage is keyed on "any magic of this type"
I do not let property runes affect golems. But if a property rune does the right amount of damage to affect them, it does the extra damage. A cold rune does the extra damage which is much greater to a stone golem.
This is how I intend to run it until the designers clarify otherwise.
I think the way to look at it is think of the potency rune as affecting the weapon making it sharper heavier etc. elemental damage however does seem like it is more directly from the rune.
Deriven Firelion wrote: I do not let property runes affect golems. But if a property rune does the right amount of damage to affect them, it does the extra damage. A cold rune does the extra damage which is much greater to a stone golem.
This is how I intend to run it until the designers clarify otherwise.
...so you're saying that if a character in your game with a frost rune on their weapon takes a swing at a stone golem and rolls ? on the 1d6 cold damage it adds to the weapon, it will trigger the 5d10 damage the golem is supposed to take when "Any magic of this type that targets the golem causes it to take the listed amount of damage"?
I'm not sure I'm reading you right, but it seems like you're somehow not just wrong that it's not clear how property runes affect golems but that you also are doing something like thinking their physical resistance would apply (when it won't because elemental damage is not physical damage) and that a rune could roll high enough to get some damage through said resistance (when it can't because runes only add 1d6) and then you'd swap out that damage for the roll listed in the golem's stat block.
RAW is this: weapon with frost rune hits stone golem, roll 5d10 damage that has no type instead of the 1d6 cold damage the rune would do normally. And there's zero ambiguity about that.
thenobledrake wrote: Deriven Firelion wrote: I do not let property runes affect golems. But if a property rune does the right amount of damage to affect them, it does the extra damage. A cold rune does the extra damage which is much greater to a stone golem.
This is how I intend to run it until the designers clarify otherwise.
...so you're saying that if a character in your game with a frost rune on their weapon takes a swing at a stone golem and rolls ? on the 1d6 cold damage it adds to the weapon, it will trigger the 5d10 damage the golem is supposed to take when "Any magic of this type that targets the golem causes it to take the listed amount of damage"?
I'm not sure I'm reading you right, but it seems like you're somehow not just wrong that it's not clear how property runes affect golems but that you also are doing something like thinking their physical resistance would apply (when it won't because elemental damage is not physical damage) and that a rune could roll high enough to get some damage through said resistance (when it can't because runes only add 1d6) and then you'd swap out that damage for the roll listed in the golem's stat block.
RAW is this: weapon with frost rune hits stone golem, roll 5d10 damage that has no type instead of the 1d6 cold damage the rune would do normally. And there's zero ambiguity about that. I'm not even sure what you're trying to say.
If a person has a frost rune, they swing and hit. It will do the following:
1. Physical damage from strike applied against golem's physical damage resistance plus 5d10 damage as the cold rune unbinds the golem magic doing the damage. The 1d6 is replaced by the 5d10.
Deriven Firelion wrote:
I'm not even sure what you're trying to say.
If a person has a frost rune, they swing and hit. It will do the following:
1. Physical damage from strike applied against golem's physical damage resistance plus 5d10 damage as the cold rune unbinds the golem magic doing the damage. The 1d6 is replaced by the 5d10.
When you said "I do not let property runes affect golems" it was unclear that you were actually meaning that you follow the rules as written. Also the "right amount of damage" phrasing, rather than "right type of damage" further enhanced the appearance of you not doing the standard thing.
The only thing that is clear is that Paizo needs to write a blog post that clarifies golems.
Not just by tweaking a word or two in the rules.
They need to use examples. Provide insight into designer intent.
Considering how clear the text already is, a blog on the subject probably wouldn't do any good for anyone that still thinks there's a lack of clarity after having another reader explain it to them.
thenobledrake wrote: Deriven Firelion wrote:
I'm not even sure what you're trying to say.
If a person has a frost rune, they swing and hit. It will do the following:
1. Physical damage from strike applied against golem's physical damage resistance plus 5d10 damage as the cold rune unbinds the golem magic doing the damage. The 1d6 is replaced by the 5d10.
When you said "I do not let property runes affect golems" it was unclear that you were actually meaning that you follow the rules as written. Also the "right amount of damage" phrasing, rather than "right type of damage" further enhanced the appearance of you not doing the standard thing. I see. I follow it as written at this point.
I still don't understand why a 1d6 cold rune or a ray of frost does more damage to a stone golem than a cone of cold, but hey, I didn't write the rule. It certainly isn't how I would have written it.
I wouldn't so much like clarity as a complete rewrite of the golem antimagic that makes more sense. I drop a cone of cold on a stone golem, I do 2d8 untyped damage. I hit it with a 1d6 frost rune or a 5d4 ray of frost I do 5d10 damage.
That doesn't make much sense to me.
Deriven Firelion wrote: I still don't understand why a 1d6 cold rune or a ray of frost does more damage to a stone golem than a cone of cold... It doesn't, all of those do the same damage to a stone golem.
The 2d8 damage is not for all area magic, it is for areas which a golem can start its turn in. (and, of course, for persistent damage).
It's only spells like ice storm that are going to trigger the 2d8.
Deriven Firelion wrote: thenobledrake wrote: Deriven Firelion wrote:
I'm not even sure what you're trying to say.
If a person has a frost rune, they swing and hit. It will do the following:
1. Physical damage from strike applied against golem's physical damage resistance plus 5d10 damage as the cold rune unbinds the golem magic doing the damage. The 1d6 is replaced by the 5d10.
When you said "I do not let property runes affect golems" it was unclear that you were actually meaning that you follow the rules as written. Also the "right amount of damage" phrasing, rather than "right type of damage" further enhanced the appearance of you not doing the standard thing. I see. I follow it as written at this point.
I still don't understand why a 1d6 cold rune or a ray of frost does more damage to a stone golem than a cone of cold, but hey, I didn't write the rule. It certainly isn't how I would have written it.
I wouldn't so much like clarity as a complete rewrite of the golem antimagic that makes more sense. I drop a cone of cold on a stone golem, I do 2d8 untyped damage. I hit it with a 1d6 frost rune or a 5d4 ray of frost I do 5d10 damage.
That doesn't make much sense to me. The main problem with that is Striking runes.
They are as "magic" as frost rune is "cold"
So, by default, if we take runes to be part of the Golem Antimagic package, Golems are immune to Striking damage increases and all weapons only do their basic 1dX
shroudb wrote: The main problem with that is Striking runes.
They are as "magic" as frost rune is "cold"
So, by default, if we take runes to be part of the Golem Antimagic package, Golems are immune to Striking damage increases and all weapons only do their basic 1dX
False, and here's why:
The blanket immunity is "to spells and magical abilities" - runes are neither of those, so they would apply normally. This means striking runes get added to damage, and property runes also work normally except if they fall under the "any magic of this type" clauses established in the harmed by, healed by, and slowed by sections.
To be immune to striking runes, Golem Antimagic would have to be worded like "A golem is immune to all magic other than its own, but each type of golem is affected by a few types of magic in special ways."
thenobledrake wrote: shroudb wrote: The main problem with that is Striking runes.
They are as "magic" as frost rune is "cold"
So, by default, if we take runes to be part of the Golem Antimagic package, Golems are immune to Striking damage increases and all weapons only do their basic 1dX
False, and here's why:
The blanket immunity is "to spells and magical abilities" - runes are neither of those, so they would apply normally. This means striking runes get added to damage, and property runes also work normally except if they fall under the "any magic of this type" clauses established in the harmed by, healed by, and slowed by sections.
To be immune to striking runes, Golem Antimagic would have to be worded like "A golem is immune to all magic other than its own, but each type of golem is affected by a few types of magic in special ways." Why is attacking with a Frost weapon "an ability" but attacking with a Striking weapon not?
Both modify the damage of your Strike, why one modifies it as an ability and the other not as one?
in short, why do you think that Frost adds an "ability"?
shroudb wrote: Why is attacking with a Frost weapon "an ability" but attacking with a Striking weapon not? It isn't.
They are the same - both are runes. Neither is "an ability."
The reason a golem isn't immune to a striking rune is because it's not a spell, and it's not an ability. Same goes for a property rune.
The reason a golem takes a special amount of damage from the right property rune isn't because it's a spell or an ability (because it's neither), it's because it is "any magic" of the appropriate type.
Here's an example to try and be specific in the details here: a stone golem struck by a longsword that has striking, frost, and flaming runes would take 2d8 slashing damage*, 1d6 fire damage, and 5d10 untyped damage instead of 1d6 cold damage.
*plus any normal modifiers, minus resistance if the weapon isn't adamantine, as normal.
thenobledrake wrote: shroudb wrote: Why is attacking with a Frost weapon "an ability" but attacking with a Striking weapon not? It isn't.
They are the same - both are runes. Neither is "an ability."
The reason a golem isn't immune to a striking rune is because it's not a spell, and it's not an ability. Same goes for a property rune.
The reason a golem takes a special amount of damage from the right property rune isn't because it's a spell or an ability (because it's neither), it's because it is "any magic" of the appropriate type.
Here's an example to try and be specific in the details here: a stone golem struck by a longsword that has striking, frost, and flaming runes would take 2d8 slashing damage*, 1d6 fire damage, and 5d10 untyped damage instead of 1d6 cold damage.
*plus any normal modifiers, minus resistance if the weapon isn't adamantine, as normal. i disagree:
Quote: 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. it is immune to magical abilities other than it's own.
it is affected by some magic in some specific ways.
if Runes are a type of magic affecting the Golem then it is immune to striking and succeptible to frost.
We can't simultaneously count the same item as "not magic" and the equivalent item as "magic".
The best way to resolve this is counting Runes as not affecting the Golem itself, but as affecting your weapon. The "frost rune" isn't a magic effect on the Golem, it's giving your weapon cold damage. Similarly, Striking runes don't hit your foes harder, they make your weapon hit harder.
So, in the end, apart from resistance/weakness to a type of damage, runes don't affect a Golem any differently.
thenobledrake wrote: Deriven Firelion wrote: I still don't understand why a 1d6 cold rune or a ray of frost does more damage to a stone golem than a cone of cold... It doesn't, all of those do the same damage to a stone golem.
The 2d8 damage is not for all area magic, it is for areas which a golem can start its turn in. (and, of course, for persistent damage).
It's only spells like ice storm that are going to trigger the 2d8. How did you determine this since cone of cold does area effect damage?
thenobledrake wrote: Considering how clear the text already is, a blog on the subject probably wouldn't do any good for anyone that still thinks there's a lack of clarity after having another reader explain it to them. If the text was clear we wouldn't have all these questions.
shroudb wrote: We can't simultaneously count the same item as "not magic" and the equivalent item as "magic". That isn't what we are doing. We are counting the item as "magic" but not a "spell" and not a "magical ability"
shroudb wrote: So, in the end, apart from resistance/weakness to a type of damage, runes don't affect a Golem any differently. Which is what I said, so it's weird that you are stating it like you're arguing against me.
Deriven Firelion wrote: How did you determine this since cone of cold does area effect damage? I read the words used in Golem Antimagic in the order they are written.
If all areas, not just those the golem starts its turn in, did the reduced damage value the sentence would not be structured "If the golem starts its turn in an area of magic of this type..." because this sentence is creating the specific exceptions to the prior sentence that tells us all effects of the right type will do big damage instead of their normal effects.
Zapp wrote: If the text was clear we wouldn't have all these questions. ...because no one has ever been capable of misreading clear text for any reason.
Zapp wrote: thenobledrake wrote: Considering how clear the text already is, a blog on the subject probably wouldn't do any good for anyone that still thinks there's a lack of clarity after having another reader explain it to them. If the text was clear we wouldn't have all these questions. I did not read that part. I was going by the creature stat block. Thanks for pointing that out. It slipped my mind. That makes more sense now.
That's why I like hitting the forums. I have not read the bestiary as thoroughly as I should have at this point. The golem stat block is not as clear.
It is true that bits of text that have an accompanying explanation text can be misleading when the reader isn't aware of, or can't remember, the explanation text.
Tables fall prey to that pretty often too.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
thenobledrake wrote: ...because no one has ever been capable of misreading clear text for any reason. No one, not a single person on this forums has ever misread clear text ever, it is always' paizo's fault 100% ;)
Hmm, it does look like AoEs don't affect golems, unless they last until the golem's turn (or also target 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."
So, for example, to do the 5d10 damage to a stone golem, you have to use a spell that targets it, not just one that includes it in the area of effect.
A cone of cold, on the other hand, will do nothing, because "2d8 from areas and persistent", similarly listed in all golems, is referring to the golem starting its turn in the area, or with persistent damage.
Ray of Frost harms stone golems, but cone of cold does not.
As for clarity, I'm just not sure here. "Spells and Magical Abilities", well, spells aren't vague, but what is a magical ability?
Magical, I think there's no difficulty with. We all understand that runes are magic, and so is their damage (well, I shouldn't speak for everyone, but just look at its entry).
Now for ability. If we look in the glossary, we see: "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."
So an ability could give you a bonus to damage rolls, as an example. The sources are "feat, spell, and so on."
Anyone find a clearer definition of ability?
Does a magical frost rune confer a magical ability to do cold damage to a target on a hit?
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Bast L. wrote: ...a spell that targets it, not just one that includes it in the area of effect. Not only is a game written in casual language, as Pathfinder 2nd edition is, not meant to be read with such a technical perspective as to have "yeah, I blasted the golem with my spell... I didn't target it though" be a thing...
But it's the "Targets" section of the rules that tells us a spell with an area "affects all creatures in the area indiscriminately" - not the "Areas" section which precedes the "Targets" section in the book and could (also should have if it were the intent) have said that area spells without a "target [blank]" entry affect all the creatures in them, but didn't.
Leading to the conclusion that yes, putting a golem in the area of an area effect spell is the same thing as targeting the golem (and anything else in the area) with said spell.
The text isn't "unclear" about this, it's just not "technical" - and that's why it doesn't hold up to being read as if it were technical. The whole point of writing the game in casual language was to avoid these situations that boil down to "the writer used a synonym, so now the rule doesn't do anything"
Bast L. wrote: So an ability could give you a bonus to damage rolls, as an example. The sources are "feat, spell, and so on." Rage is an example of an ability that gives you a bonus to damage rolls - a property rune isn't.
thenobledrake wrote: Leading to the conclusion that yes, putting a golem in the area of an area effect spell is the same thing as targeting the golem (and anything else in the area) with said spell. By this logic, if the golem is concealed or hidden (by fog, darkness, or blinding the caster), then you have to pass a flat check in order for it to be affected by Cone of Cold or Fireball, per the rules for Detecting Creatures. Targeting is targeting; you can make an argument for casual language but the argument should also be made for *consistent* language.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
RootOfAllThings wrote: By this logic, if the golem is concealed or hidden (by fog, darkness, or blinding the caster), then you have to pass a flat check in order for it to be affected by Cone of Cold or Fireball, per the rules for Detecting Creatures. Targeting is targeting; you can make an argument for casual language but the argument should also be made for *consistent* language. Alright, cool... you made me look up even more evidence for my point. I really appreciate that.
Here's a quote from the concealed condition: "Area effects aren’t subject to this flat check."
Here's a quote from the hidden condition: "Area effects aren't subject to this flat check."
Seems like a thing they wouldn't have to say if areas weren't targeting the things in the area in the first place.
Casual. Consistent. Clear.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
RootOfAllThings wrote: Targeting is targeting; you can make an argument for casual language but the argument should also be made for *consistent* language. Yeah, there seems to be some inconsistency in the book. Sometimes they distinguish "targeted by" from area spells, other times not.
Examples:
Ring of counterspells trigger: "You are targeted by or within the area of the spell stored within the ring"
Ring of Spell Turning trigger: "You are targeted by a spell" (so no to areas? yes?)
Spell turning spell itself: "Spell turning can’t affect spells that aren’t targeted (such as area spells)."
Reactive Distraction trigger: "You would be hit by an attack or targeted by an effect, or you are within an effect’s area."
Reactive Distraction text: "In the case of an area effect, if your Sneak doesn’t move you out of the area, both you and the decoy are targeted by the effect."
Reflect Spell: "When you successfully use Counterspell to counteract a spell that affects targeted creatures or an area"
They often distinguish the two, and sometimes (at least once) don't. The area descriptions (burst, line, etc) all refer to affecting creatures, not targeting them. Meanwhile Reactive Distraction Text (though not the trigger) specifies being targeted for being in the area. It's true, they could be using inclusive or, and just typing loads of redundant text (if areas targeted creatures, there's no need to specify "or within the area of a spell"). The area section in "targets" also refers to affecting creatures, not to targeting them.
I guess if I was going to argue about casual language, I would say that "affects all creatures in the area indiscriminately," is the opposite of "targeting".
So, are the rules wrong? Not strictly logically, as they could be using inclusive or, with redundant language, but it certainly makes a lot of effort to distinguish "targeted by," from "in the area of," if they intend for the latter to also be the former. Especially since they could have just said in the area section: "targets all creatures in the area indiscriminately."
I think I'll go with the quote until it's clarified that they are using inclusive or with redundant text. Targeting is targeting.
Anyone able to find examples other than the Reactive Distraction text that show creatures in an area being targeted by a non-targeted area spell? I thought Selective Energy was one, but then saw that heal/harm are targeted spells (1, 2, or 3 action).
Bast L. wrote: I guess if I was going to argue about casual language, I would say that "affects all creatures in the area indiscriminately," is the opposite of "targeting". That is a gross misunderstanding of what casual language means, though.
Almost no one would consider "targets you" and "affects you" as not being synonymous.
As for redundant text, yes, the writers absolutely have been demonstrated as using redundant text in various parts of the book - just look at the various threads about wall spells and how a couple of the spells say that wall has to be vertical (you know, like walls generally are by definition) and others don't say the wall has to be vertical but also doesn't say it can be anything else. And just like with that situation, not having the redundant text should not be treated as meaning the rule works differently as a direct result of just that.
And last, but not least, if a specific instance - not a general rule - such as a spell has a wording that doesn't seem like it lines up fully with various other specific instances and also the general rule... the most likely explanation is that one instance needs errata, not that it's the only thing that's accurate.
So spell turning, which is the only thing that is not in line with what I've said the rules say thus far as it's the only thing directly stating area effects as not-targeted, is likely an errata candidate (to change the language to "Spell turning can't affect spells that don't specify a number of targets (such as area spells)"
...in fact, spell turning definitely needs errata because it doesn't clearly state that it only works on spells that target only you, and also doesn't state what happens to any targets other than you if it can reflect such spells and you successfully do so.
This discussion about the minutiae of targeting and affecting reminds me of the recent clarification of Acid Splash. In short, how many targets does Acid Splash have?
As written, it has one target and no area. As interpreted in this thread, it can have multiple targets and an area due to its splash. Either way, if you're standing next to somebody you can never use a Ring of Counterspells to protect yourself from a potentially lethal Acid Splash, because in one case you're not a target and in another case you're too late to counteract the spell.
Relevant to this thread because of when the Golem Antimagic is triggered, if the Golem is standing next to some poor, un-antimagical schmuck.
RootOfAllThings wrote: As interpreted in this thread, it can have multiple targets and an area due to its splash. ...um... how so?
Splash is not mentioned in the Areas rule, so isn't an area and doesn't have to follow any of the rules for areas.
Splash is not mentioned in the Targets rule, so - unlike area effects which are mentioned in this rule - it isn't considered a form of targeting by the rules.
The Splash rule contains all the relevant details for things that get labeled with it, and the only time it mentions the word "target" is when referring to the initial damage target - it does not say, or imply in any way, that the creatures that weren't the initial target are also targets.
RootOfAllthings wrote: Relevant to this thread because of when the Golem Antimagic is triggered, if the Golem is standing next to some poor, un-antimagical schmuck. There is no instance in which Golem Antimagic's effects change based on who or what the golem is standing next to.
thenobledrake wrote: RootOfAllThings wrote: As interpreted in this thread, it can have multiple targets and an area due to its splash. ...um... how so?
Splash is not mentioned in the Areas rule, so isn't an area and doesn't have to follow any of the rules for areas.
Splash is not mentioned in the Targets rule, so - unlike area effects which are mentioned in this rule - it isn't considered a form of targeting by the rules.
The Splash rule contains all the relevant details for things that get labeled with it, and the only time it mentions the word "target" is when referring to the initial damage target - it does not say, or imply in any way, that the creatures that weren't the initial target are also targets.
RootOfAllthings wrote: Relevant to this thread because of when the Golem Antimagic is triggered, if the Golem is standing next to some poor, un-antimagical schmuck. There is no instance in which Golem Antimagic's effects change based on who or what the golem is standing next to. So Acid Splash's splash damage doesn't count as "affecting" a Golem for the purposes of its Harmed By clause? It's magical, it's a spell, and it's affecting the Golem in the casual sense of the word, but it's not affecting the Golem in the sense of targeting being nigh synonymous with affecting?
RootOfAllThings wrote: So Acid Splash's splash damage doesn't count as "affecting" a Golem for the purposes of its Harmed By clause? It's magical, it's a spell, and it's affecting the Golem in the casual sense of the word, but it's not affecting the Golem in the sense of targeting being nigh synonymous with affecting? Thats the problem if rules are written in (too) casual language. There is a reason why in terms of clarity mathematical formula > lawyers text > casual text, and casual text is the probable reason why we have a couple of those discussions, e.g. Acid Splash, Golem Anti-Magic, Invisibility, Sanctuary etc.
Having said so I strongly oppose the notion that targeting and affecting are synonymous in their day to day meaning. A weapon like a bow/gun will most likely be used to target you, a fireball or hand grenade thrown in your general direction will most likely affect you without specifically targetting you. There is a huge difference in between direct acting and indirect acting weapons/spells, both ingame and in real life.
As such in my opinion the Golem Antimagic description as it is is not clear enough as is contains several big question marks.
"A golem is immune to spells and magical abilities other than its own..."
Only directly or also indirectly? Can a Golem be fooled by illusions (Invisibility), can he punch through an Obscuring Mist with no miss chance or does he interact with spells like Wall of Force, Grease and the like at all? Can he just plough through them as if they were not there?
"Harmed By Any magic of this type that targets the golem causes it to take the listed amount of damage..."
Do you also need to hit or is targetting the Golem already enough? What about AoE spells that have no targets listed?
etc. etc.
Note that I do not blame Paizo at all for using casual rules text as most of the time those rules are simply easier to understand and nobody would probably enjoy a rule book written in lawyers text style. However there are at least some cases within the current ruleset where apparently the designer knew what he had in mind but somehow failed to provide a clear and conclusive description, at least for us forumites that strictly tend to go by the word as written (RAW), not as per what can be interpreted (RAI). Nothing that could not be rectified by a FAQ.
|
