I require the target be hit. Pretty sure that is the intent.
Golem Antimagic says this: "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."
I've added the italic to emphasize the part which says, functionally "Once you have picked the golem as a target, ignore everything else the spell actually says - it takes damage instead" - it doesn't mention "if it hits" or "if it fails the save" or that there's a basic save if that's what the spell normally would do and an all-or-nothing save if it wouldn't, and the reason why it doesn't cover any of that information is because the details of spell stop mattering at "can you target the golem with it?"
You don't get the "crit fail your attack, but still hit" scenario because you don't roll any attack roll.
And yes, it is absolutely by design that having the right tool(s) will make taking the golem down easy - that's because it's also very hard to take the golem down without said tools. Pick any golem and imagine fighting it with a party that doesn't have any adamantine weapons and also can't trigger the harmed by, slowed by, or vulnerable to portions of that golem's antimagic. It'd be a very rough fight.
Then why does the stat block even mention Persistent Damage? Unless I've missed something you have to crit to apply that with any spell.
Acid Arrow
Golem Antimagic says this: "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."
I've added the italic to emphasize the part which says, functionally "Once you have picked the golem as a target, ignore everything else the spell actually says - it takes damage instead" - it doesn't mention "if it hits" or "if it fails the save" or that there's a basic save if that's what the spell normally would do and an all-or-nothing save if it wouldn't, and the reason why it doesn't cover any of that information is because the details of spell stop mattering at "can you target the golem with it?"
You don't get the "crit fail your attack, but still hit" scenario because you don't roll any attack roll.
And yes, it is absolutely by design that having the right tool(s) will make taking the golem down easy - that's because it's also very hard to take the golem down without said tools. Pick any golem and imagine fighting it with a party that doesn't have any adamantine weapons and also can't trigger the harmed by, slowed by, or vulnerable to portions of that golem's antimagic. It'd be a very rough fight.
While I initially agreed with you, this creates an issue for Spells that don't have Targets, like Burning Hands or Fireball,
As Golems are Immune to all Spells, except for Spells with specific Traits that Target them, it means that an Ice Golem for example is completely Immune to Fireball, but gets wrecked by Produce Flame, which does not seem like the intention.
Golem Antimagic says this: "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."
I've added the italic to emphasize the part which says, functionally "Once you have picked the golem as a target, ignore everything else the spell actually says - it takes damage instead" - it doesn't mention "if it hits" or "if it fails the save" or that there's a basic save if that's what the spell normally would do and an all-or-nothing save if it wouldn't, and the reason why it doesn't cover any of that information is because the details of spell stop mattering at "can you target the golem with it?"
You don't get the "crit fail your attack, but still hit" scenario because you don't roll any attack roll.
And yes, it is absolutely by design that having the right tool(s) will make taking the golem down easy - that's because it's also very hard to take the golem down without said tools. Pick any golem and imagine fighting it with a party that doesn't have any adamantine weapons and also can't trigger the harmed by, slowed by, or vulnerable to portions of that golem's antimagic. It'd be a very rough fight.
While I initially agreed with you, this creates an issue for Spells that don't have Targets, like Burning Hands or Fireball,
As Golems are Immune to all Spells, except for Spells with specific Traits that Target them, it means that an Ice Golem for example is completely Immune to Fireball, but gets wrecked by Produce Flame, which does not seem like the intention.
They should have spelled this out better. I'm going to run it as intended. An AoE spell will do the AoE/persistent damage they take.
They should have spelled this out better.
Well, either the Golem ability or the basic rules would do...
A spell that has an area but no targets listed usuallyaffectstargets all creatures in the area indiscriminately.
While I initially agreed with you, this creates an issue for Spells that don't have Targets, like Burning Hands or FireballI disagree. There is no reason to believe that when the Targets paragraph on page 304 says "A spell that has an area but no targets listed usually affects all creatures in the area indiscriminately." is meant to be interpreted as not saying all creatures in the area are targeted by the spell - especially because the understood table-talk version of the scenario could easily be a player saying "I'm gonna cast burning hands targeting the golem."
So as I said, I do generally agree with your interpretation that Spells of the appropriate Type do not need to roll to hit a Golem.
That being said, why is it that the specific words in the Rule only seem to matter to you when they match your interpretation of the Rule?
Why is the inclusion of the word Target in Golem Anti-Magic any more meaningful than the exclusion of the word Target in Area Spells?
That doesn't make sense to me. We have to assume that in both cases, the words were chosen intentionally, and because they don't gel, unless the intention truly was to make Golems immune to AoE Spells while also being extremely vulnerable to Attack Roll Spells, one of them needs to be issued errata.
I don't think any of us can say for sure which one needs to change, or which way it is intended to work.
From the glossary of the CRB, p. 631:
effect
An effect is the result of an ability, though an ability's exact effect is sometimes contingent on the result of a check or other roll. 453-457E.g., taking damage from a sword strike is an effect of the sword strike. The damage only occurs if you are first hit by a successful attack roll. Taking damage from a fireball is an effect of the fireball, which only occurs if you do not critically succeed on your Reflex save against it.
From the bestiary p. 184
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.That tells me it's only the effect that changes. You still have to roll attacks and/or saves as necessary for any effect to occur as a result of the spell. If no attack/save rolls were necessary for the effect to occur I think that would have been made clear in the antimagic text. Without utter clarity, I think it is just too much of a departure from game mechanics to be assumed.
Ok, but this still presents a bit of a conundrum. Obviously for abilities with an attack roll, if you miss you just miss, and if you hit...it's still a bit confusing, at least to me.
Like, lets take a Flesh Golem, they are Harmed by Fire. I am a level 8 Cleric, and I cast 4th level Ray of Fire at it.
If I miss, I miss.
If I hit, my normal effect would be 8d6 Fire damage. But the Golem would make it just 5d8?
And if I crit, It'd be (8d6x2) and also 4d4 persistent, but the Golem would make it 5d8 and 3d4?
That's how I read it, but it seems rather counterintuitive that the golem comes out taking less damage than what they otherwise would, while I still need to actually hit it and such for spells to take effect.
Looking through this, I am forced to concede to the idea it auto works if targeting the golem directly. As Effects, as called out and described in the core book on page 453, range, targets, area of affect, attack roll modifiers, etc. are all called out as part of the Effects portion.
Disagree. The section you reference even has this sentence
While a check might determine the overall impact or strength of an effect, a check is not always part of creating an effect
That makes no sense if a check is part of an effect, rather than what helps you determine how that effect manifests.
The examples regarding Fly and Intimidate just make it further clear to me that the effect is the result, not the totality of the action.
I mean, that's what the word effect means. It's a result based on an action or cause. The action or cause is casting the spell/making an attack/etc and the effect is what happens afterwards (i.e. missing, dealing damage, inflicting a debuff).
I wonder how PFS runs Golem Antimagic.
I believe you have misread the section, specifically about targeting. If a spell has an area and doesn't call out specific targets, it is assumed to target all creatures within equally. Fireball still hits a group of Golems and does damage.Looking through this, I am forced to concede to the idea it auto works if targeting the golem directly. As Effects, as called out and described in the core book on page 453, range, targets, area of affect, attack roll modifiers, etc. are all called out as part of the Effects portion.
Further, it calls out Targets and Areas as seperate components of effects, and Effects make it clear that not everything has all the listed components. Areas specifically state they "spread out from point of origin" and never mention a target. As such, much like tags in this system, I am forced to conclude that AOE effects do NOT have targets. As the golem antimagic specifically calls out "any magic of this type that TARGETS the golem" then fireballs do nothing....
This leads to the situation where a entourage of golems is much more deadly increase than a single one, as you can't just fireball-equivalent into the crowd.
Except it doesn't say that. It says that it "affects all creatures in the area indiscriminately." The word Target does not appear.
In fact, at the beginning of the Targets section, Target is defined as something you choose to hit directly.
Targets
Some spells allow you to directly target a creature, an object, or something that fits a more specific category. The target must be within the spell’s range, and you must be able to see it (or otherwise perceive it with a precise sense) to target it normally.
If Fireball or Burning hands did have Targets, you would not be able to hit Invisible or Hidden Creatures with them at all, as you must be able to see a Creature to Target it.
Recently ran a Flesh Golem against a lvl 8 party. I ruled Golem Anti-Magic as making a spell auto hit, no save or attack roll necessary. After all, why would Golem Anti-Magic force caster's to still make an attack roll, but not force the Golem to make a save? Or is anyone advocating that the Golem would have to make a save against the spell? If so, then why doesn't Golem Anti-Magic specify whether that save follows the specific rules for the spell, if there are any, or become a basic save of the relevant type?
Compare to the Vulnerable to mode of Golem Anti-Magic, which stipulates exactly how a specific spell effects the golem. For instance the Flesh Golem is effected normally by Flesh to Stone, including it's save.
I also ruled that any area attack simply did the area damage, much to the chagrin of my fireball slinging sorcerer. My justification is thus: Fireball has an area.
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 believe that the requirement that the golem starts it's turn in an area of magic is simply there to reference that specific circumstance, not as the only application of the "area" damage. Any cone, burst, emanation, line etc... that deal's magical damage of the listed type would simply do the area damage by virtue of being an area effect.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wonder how PFS runs Golem Antimagic.
I can answer that for you. They put a golem in a scenario, and whoever is running it handles it to their best understanding of how it's supposed to work. No special rulings.
which shows us that the check called for by a spell - whether it's an attack roll, a saving throw, or both - is part of the effect of that spell and is thus also replaced by Golem Antimagic.
The line you just quoted said that a check might determine the strength of an effect or is part of creating an effect. That suggests the exact opposite.
That you have to approach this interpretation from such a roundabout way, while not definitive proof one way or the other, makes it seem less likely to me too.
Something as significant as spells automatically hitting golems is a really major detail to completely fail to mention explicitly and instead expect players to infer by squinting carefully at a bunch of different rules entries and making some specific logical leaps and extrapolations to reach.
I believe that the requirement that the golem starts it's turn in an area of magic is simply there to reference that specific circumstance, not as the only application of the "area" damage. Any cone, burst, emanation, line etc... that deal's magical damage of the listed type would simply do the area damage by virtue of being an area effect.If the text said "Any area of magic of this type or persistent damage..." you'd have a point.
But the sentence begins with "If the golem starts its turn..." so it is as clear as the author can make it that they aren't talking about some other circumstance besides that.
Exactly. The sentence begin's with "If," making it a specific comment on the described situation, and not how to deal with area spells as a general rule.
If what you are saying is true, does that mean that a Flesh Golem would be immune to Fireball, since it could not "begin it's turn within," the radius of Fireball?
Or does Fireball deal 5d8 damage? But if it would do 5d8 damage, why not 3d4 being that Fireball is an area, and area spells are pretty clearly stated in the Harmed By statement on the specific golem's stat block to deal a specific amount of damage?
harmed by fire (5d8, 3d4 from areas or persistent damage)
Reading both together, you get a pretty clear idea as to how this scenario should play out.
Direct targeted spells of the correct type deal 5d8 (in this case). Area spell's or persistent damage deal 3d4. 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 3d4.
I don't see the disconnect here.
I wonder how PFS runs Golem Antimagic.I can answer that for you. They put a golem in a scenario, and whoever is running it handles it to their best understanding of how it's supposed to work. No special rulings.
So even they don't have a consistent ruling. You know a rule is poorly written when this many interpretations vary. I hate it when they write rules this poorly, then take forever to clarify or fix.
It's actually a fairly rare exception for Organized Play to put it's own rulings on things like this. People will help disseminate official rulings once they exist, but making them is generally left to the design team. Occasionally Org Play has stated a ruling that came from talking to the design team, but that isn't super common, either.
Is that functionally different, or linguistically different in meaning from "...instead of the usual effect." No, it's not. Because the game defines effect for us in a way that already includes that some effects involve checks.
You can keep saying that, but there's be a fundamental disconnect over whether or not that's even true to begin with.
To have a scenario where different people are reading the same paragraph and coming to exactly opposite readings and then shrug and say "It's unreasonable to expect the developers to be explicit" is ridiculous.
And I refuse to agree to call "reading the rule book as a whole, rather than only a single piece of rules that happens to interact with others" approaching the interpretation in "a roundabout way"
The fact is, regardless of whether or not your interpretation is correct, it's something that's literally never called out directly anywhere in any of the associated rules.
It's an inference based on an assumption about something that's never outright stated. That's what makes it roundabout and that's what makes it a problem.
Eh, to each their own and all that. When I read, "harmed by fire (5d8, 3d4 from areas or persistent damage)," in a creature stat block, I see that second bit as applying to any area damage.
I can see how you could read the overall mechanic's second sentence and come to the conclusion that you have, I just don't agree with it. I see that sentence as referencing the specific scenario that it describes.
So Wall of Fire does 3d4, as does Fireball, Burning Hands, Flaming Sphere and any other area spell that would deal fire damage. Directed attacks like Produce Flame and Searing Light deal 5d8.
To me, Magic simply doesn't work the way it's supposed to at all in respect to Golems, this is especially true since the damage they take from their harmed by spells is untyped damage, rather than damage of the referenced type. So the fire of a fireball never actually touches the golem, neither does the spark from a produce flame. Instead they have the listed effects.
It does not seem intended at all that the golem would take damage solely by being targeted. That seems very unintended. As far as AoE not targeting them directly, that seems very unintended that an AoE spell with the intended magic damage and tag would not affect a golem it hits.
Golem Antimagic appears to be a rule they wrote fairly quickly that went into the game without much polish. It could use some polish.
...I see that second bit as applying to any area damage.I see a lot of shades of purple as shades of blue... doesn't make it true though, just shows how color deficiency impacts my life.
It's important, in my opinion, to identify why you see something the way you do and to make sure it's a sound reason. But maybe that's because I imagine being in a discussion and insisting iris and periwinkle are shades of blue and everyone else just staring at me with confusion on their faces because you can straight up search "shades of purple" and find the both of those listed.
Just like everyone can look up and see that second bit definitely not being intended to apply to any area because if that were the case there'd be zero reason for it to use the words "If the golem starts it's turn in"
That's just it, the second sentence is an "If," statement or a conditional. It refers only to what it describes, usually what can, should or you (the author) hope will happen in a specific circumstance. In this case, the if in question is when a golem would begin it's turn within an area of the indicated magical damage type.
I just don't believe that the harmed by section of the individual monster's stat block noting that, "3d4 from areas or persistent damage," is only in reference to the one circumstance described in that statement.
Again, I understand why you could read that and think that, I just don't feel that the second sentence of Golem Anti-Magic clearly establishes that this circumstance is the only time you apply 3d4 damage condition on a spell. In my opinion, stating simply that areas and persistent damage deal 3d4 is enough, with no further explanation needed.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just my 5 cents on the "targets" issue and AoE:
If we look at the individual entries on page 304 it becomes quite clear that AoE's "target" all creatures in the area, even if the exact wording is not used. The entire first paragraph under TARGETS describes how single target spells are handled.
Some spells allow you to directly target a creature, an object, or something that fits a more specific category....
...If a creature starts outas a valid target but ceases to be one during a spell’s duration, the spell typically ends, but the GM might decide otherwise in certain situations.
The second paragraph describes how spells are handled that have an area and multiple targets within said area.
Spells that affect multiple creatures in an area can have both an Area entry and a Targets entry.
And the third paragraph describes how spells are handled that do not specify targets.
A spell that has an area but no targets listed usually affects all creatures in the area indiscriminately.
So yes, the exact wording is not used for whatever reason, however based on the paragraph headline "TARGETS" and the structue of the rules as they are presented within the paragraph, namely going from single (targets) to multiple (targets) to all (targets), personally I find it save to assume that AoE's do "target" and thus affect Golems.
I am very confused by how you are treating the full explanation of the rule and the summary version of the same rule as arriving at two different things.
Let's use clay golem as the example:
In the stablock where it says "[b]Golem Antimagic[b] harmed by cold and water (5d10, 2d6 from areas or persistent damage)..." that is a summary of the general Golem Antimagic rules, and those rules tell us how that summary is meant to be read - and that is as follows:A) "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." - so any cold or water magic would do 5d10 damage instead of the usual effect.
and B) "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 an exception to the above A) is created for areas, but only the ones the golem starts it's turn in, and for persistent damage.
It's not about "further explanation needed" - it's that there already is "further explanation" and you are arbitrarily ignoring it's presence to arrive at your conclusion of how the rule is meant to function.
Simple, I don't. I see the second sentence of the full summary as being a description of a specific event, while the first sentence is the description for how a spell is treated generally.
So a Wizard casts a Fireball at a flesh golem. You look at it's stat-block, and see it's brief description of what happens. You see that it is harmed by fire (5d8, 3d4 areas and persistent damage). You know that the fireball is an area spell without a targets entry.
So you check the overall rule on Golem Anti-Magic. It states that, "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." Cool. You could stop reading there, now knowing that Fireball deals damage based on the damage listed in the parenthetical. But you keep reading anyway.
"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."
Well, that circumstance isn't happening is it? The Golem is not starting it's turn within an area of the magic type, it is simply briefly in an area of that type of magic.
Resulting in that Fireball dealing 3d4 damage.
@Ubertron_X: That is interesting, though I disagree that noting that area's without targets effect all creatures indiscriminately = targets all creatures.
Imo, without a Target quality, a spell never can be said to target anything, instead doing exactly what that line suggests: Indiscriminately effecting everything in it's area. This is why I believe that all area spells that qualify would deal the areas damage noted in the parenthetical on the Golem's statblock. Golem Anti-Magic is weird. It doesn't care whether the spell was a heightened 10th level Fireball or a 1st level Produce Flame in power. It treats them how it treats any other spell of the proper types.
You keep saying things like "I see the second sentence of the full summary as being a description of a specific event..." (bold added for emphasis) but then applying that specific thing in general.
You even double-down on that inconsistency when you say "Well, that circumstance isn't happening is it? The Golem is not starting it's turn within an area of the magic type, it is simply briefly in an area of that type of magic." where you clearly identify why the clause that presents smaller damage shouldn't apply and then go ahead an apply it anyway.
Typically, when 2 cases are present and a person can identify that a thing does not match one of the cases, they assume it must be the other case - so a thought like "The Golem is not starting it's turn within an area of the magic type, it is simply briefly in an area of that type of magic." passing through their mind would lead them to believe that the other damage total - not the one tied to the thing that's definitely not happening - is the one that applies.
I don't believe that the 3d4 damage total is directly tied only to the golem starting it's turn within an area of that damage type. That is the difference really.
I see 3d4 for areas as meaning any area spell. The second sentence of the general rule is clarifying that the golem takes that damage at the beginning of it's turn if it begins within that area, in my opinion to address spells like Flaming Sphere or Chromatic Wall, which don't specify that they deal damage at the beginning of a creature's turn.