Hello, I have a question about 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.
For example : Adamantine golem
Golem Antimagic harmed by acid (9d10, 2d10 from areas or persistent damage)so 2d10 for persistent damage ?
And 9d10 from areas, is it right ?
What is an area of magic of this type ? A (focus) spell with a cone effect ?
Thanks for your future answer.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Relevant rule:
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 if you hit the golem with an Acid Arrow, no matter the level of the spell, it takes 9d10 damage immediately and 2d10 each time it would take persistent damage from the spell.
If you cast an acid spell affecting an area the includes the golem (for example, Acidic Burst), it only takes 2d10.
Flying wizards with Ray of frost laugh at Clay golem and stone golem. Most boring encounters ever.
Unless the bored GM gives them a Screw Crusher Punch attack.
For example : Adamantine golem
Golem Antimagic harmed by acid (9d10, 2d10 from areas or persistent damage)so 2d10 for persistent damage ?
And 9d10 from areas, is it right ?
No, they really should have made that more clear. The first number (9d10) is for any magical effect - except for the second number being an override. For area effects and persistent damage it uses that second number (2d10) instead.
So a single target spell like Acid Arrow will trigger the 9d10 damage for its initial effect (instead of the normal 2d8 damage per 2 spell levels). Then the persistent damage effect will trigger the 2d10 damage (instead of the normal 1d6 per 2 spell levels)
What is an area of magic of this type ? A (focus) spell with a cone effect ?
The type of spell (spell slot, focus, cantrip, innate) doesn't matter. Any magical effect will trigger the Golem Immunities in some manner. The focus spell with a cone of acid would trigger the area damage entry because the spell has the right type (acid) and has an area (a cone).
The line about starting its turn in an area of magic is for spells that have a duration. The type that it talks about would mean the type of spell mentioned - in this case, acid.
So if there was a spell (like perhaps a variant of Elemental Zone) that had the Acid trait, an area, and a duration - then the Golem could start its turn inside that spell's area and trigger the area damage entry (2d10). Even if the homebrewed Elemental Zone spell doesn't do any damage.
Adamantine Golem is a hard example for this. Ice Golem in Elemental Zone (fire) would work as described. Wall of Fire would also trigger the area damage entry of an Ice Golem, but that one is more obvious since the spell is dealing damage already. The Witch Hex Elemental Betrayal (fire) would trigger the normal damage entry of the Ice Golem because it is starting its turn directly targeted by that effect.
I think the Acidic Burst example is wrong and still triggers the 9d10. The golem was still targeted by magic of the named type. Instantaneous AoEs are as effective as single target damage spells.
The 2d10 amount is if it **starts** its turn in an area of the magic of that type.
I think the Acidic Burst example is wrong and still triggers the 9d10. The golem was still targeted by magic of the named type. Instantaneous AoEs are as effective as single target damage spells.
The 2d10 amount is if it **starts** its turn in an area of the magic of that type.
I actually agree, I probably messed it up:
A spell that has an area but no targets listed usually affects all creatures in the area indiscriminately.
It doesn't explicitly say that all creatures in the area become targets of the spell, but I think that applying the full damage to a golem standing there is the correct thing.
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.
In both cases - direct targeting and starting its turn in an area - it refers to the damage listed in the parentheses.
harmed by acid (9d10, 2d10 from areas or persistent damage); healed by fire (area 2d10 HP); slowed by electricity
And it is in the parentheses where the damage is defined that the override takes place. Area effects deal 2d10. Persistent damage deals 2d10. Everything left deals 9d10.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Duration based area effects deal the parenthetical, not instantaneous area effects.
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.
(Emphasis added)
The "area or persistent" refers to that portion of the Harmed By rules, which states its only start of turn area effects.
Most AoE instead fall under "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." and do the full special damage.
I'm not sure you understand what I am trying to say. Let me add my own emphasis.
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.
In both cases - direct targeting and starting its turn in an area - it refers to the damage listed in the parentheses.
harmed by acid (9d10, 2d10 from areas or persistent damage); healed by fire (area 2d10 HP); slowed by electricity
And it is in the parentheses where the damage is defined that the override takes place. Area effects deal 2d10. Persistent damage deals 2d10. Everything left deals 9d10.
So it doesn't matter if the wording of area effects indicate direct targeting of the creatures in its area or not. The damage calculation is looking at if the spell is an area effect. If it is an area, then it uses the second damage value.
If all area effects do direct targeting, then why would they even make the distinction in the Golem Immunities rule? What would be an example of an area effect that doesn't target the creatures inside it?
I may be misunderstanding what you are saying too. Let me see if this addresses it more directly.
In the case of an area damage spell like Acid Burst, the second part of the Harmed By general rule wouldn't apply. Only the first one. Which I think is what you are pointing out.
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.
But it still references the entirety of the Harmed By entry for the particular golem. In this case:
harmed by acid (9d10, 2d10 from areas or persistent damage);
So Acid Burst is an area effect and deals the 2d10 specified for areas.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure you understand what I am trying to say. Let me add my own emphasis.
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.In both cases - direct targeting and starting its turn in an area - it refers to the damage listed in the parentheses.
harmed by acid (9d10, 2d10 from areas or persistent damage); healed by fire (area 2d10 HP); slowed by electricityAnd it is in the parentheses where the damage is defined that the override takes place. Area effects deal 2d10. Persistent damage deals 2d10. Everything left deals 9d10.
So it doesn't matter if the wording of area effects indicate direct targeting of the creatures in its area or not. The damage calculation is looking at if the spell is an area effect. If it is an area, then it uses the second damage value.
If all area effects do direct targeting, then why would they even make the distinction in the Golem Immunities rule? What would be an example of an area effect that doesn't target the creatures inside it?
You have this wrong. The 2d10 applies to persistent area of affect spells. Acid Storm deals acid damage to any creature that starts it's turn in the storm so 2d10. Acid Burst deals acid damage in an EoA for 5 ft emination. This causes the 9d10.
Look back at the original quoted text. "If the Golum starts in an area of magic of this type... " Not about area of effect spells. You can't "start your turn" in the area of a fireball. But you can start your turn in the area of a Wall of Fire.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm saying that (9d10, 2d10 from areas or persistent) that "from areas" is shorthand for "areas that the golem starts its turn in" not "area effects in general".
Ah. Well, I understand, but that is too much shorthand for me.
If the spell is an area effect, it deals the area effect's damage.
Yeah gotta say that interpretation is very stretched, I fail to see why they would mean individual damage in an area when they say ''area damage''
Flying wizards with Ray of frost laugh at Clay golem and stone golem. Most boring encounters ever.
in my age of ashes game the rogue downed a potion of white dragons breath. Half damage on a successful save being overwritten by the weakness is fun almost guaranteed damage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm saying that (9d10, 2d10 from areas or persistent) that "from areas" is shorthand for "areas that the golem starts its turn in" not "area effects in general".
I never interpreted the ability that way as it seems to make more sense to me to be referring to area damage in general, but looking at the full "Harmed By" text I can at least see where you're coming from, even if I disagree that that's likely what was meant.
Looking at it closer it seems like the "Harmed By" text is likely just oddly worded, since if we take "If the golem starts its turn in..." to be an important part of the definition then technically something like fireball would do nothing to a Wood Golem as a fireball can't target a creature and it doesn't leave a persistent effect behind.
Relevant rule:
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 if you hit the golem with an Acid Arrow, no matter the level of the spell, it takes 9d10 damage immediately and 2d10 each time it would take persistent damage from the spell.
You don't need to hit, just to target. Because it's immune to magic, the Acid Arrow doesn't have any effect and as such there's no persistent damage.
Flying wizards with Ray of frost laugh at Clay golem and stone golem. Most boring encounters ever.
The best one is a Witch with Clinging Ice and Ray of Frost: 2 triggers per round. Not really boring as it lasts hardly 2 rounds.
You don't need to hit, just to target. Because it's immune to magic, the Acid Arrow doesn't have any effect and as such there's no persistent damage.Relevant rule:
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 if you hit the golem with an Acid Arrow, no matter the level of the spell, it takes 9d10 damage immediately and 2d10 each time it would take persistent damage from the spell.
So what is the consensus here?
Example using Clay Golem:
1) Hydraulic Push: Targeted spell, i.e. no roll and automatic 5d10 damage.
2) Holy Cascade: Instantaneous area spell (i.e. not targeted), so 2d6 damage instead of the original effect.
3) Obscuring Mist: Area spell with a duration, i.e. as per 2) the moment it is cast (and despite the spell not dealing damage per se) and 2d6 damage each turn that the golem starts its turn in?
Is this correct?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because it's immune to magic, the Acid Arrow doesn't have any effect and as such there's no persistent damage.
I quote myself (someone said in another thread that I have a big ego, maybe they're right after all).
The persistent damage entry of the Harmed By section of Golem Antimagic is quite a headache from a RAW point of view.Magical persistent damage is a rarity, I'm not even sure it exists as of now. For example, if you're hit by an Acid Arrow or by Enervation, the persistent damage is not magical by itself.
"Some spells have effects that remain even after the spell’s magic is gone. Any ongoing effect that isn’t part of the spell’s duration entry isn’t considered magical. For instance, a spell that creates a loud sound and has no duration might deafen someone for a time, even permanently. This deafness couldn’t be counteracted because it is not itself magical (though it might be cured by other magic, such as restore senses)."
As Acid Arrow and Enervation don't have a duration, the persistent damage is an ongoing effect and not magical by itself.
Also, I hardly see how you can get affected by magical persistent damage if you can't be affected by magic.
So, overall, I think this part of the rules is just invalid. One should read "persistent effect" and not "persistent damage" in the Harmed By section of Golems, the same way Golem Antimagic rules properly speak about persistent effects.
You don't need to hit, just to target. Because it's immune to magic, the Acid Arrow doesn't have any effect and as such there's no persistent damage.Relevant rule:
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 if you hit the golem with an Acid Arrow, no matter the level of the spell, it takes 9d10 damage immediately and 2d10 each time it would take persistent damage from the spell.So what is the consensus here?
Example using Clay Golem:
1) Hydraulic Push: Targeted spell, i.e. no roll and automatic 5d10 damage.
2) Holy Cascade: Instantaneous area spell (i.e. not targeted), so 2d6 damage instead of the original effect.
3) Obscuring Mist: Area spell with a duration, i.e. as per 2) the moment it is cast (and despite the spell not dealing damage per se) and 2d6 damage each turn that the golem starts its turn in?Is this correct?
That's it.
And I'll add that:
4) Draconic Barrage: As it's a persistent effect created by a spell, the Golem takes 2d6 damage every time it's hit (and you need to hit this time) by a cold-based attack.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
RAW is in contrast: one side, the general rule, says to use the exception only when the monster starts its turn into an area of that particular type; the other, the monsters' descriptions, always say "area/areas and/or persistent damage".
If it was a single monster saying that, one could call it an exception to the general rule. Since they all say the same, IMO the general rule has to be applied, and instantaneous area effects inflict the full damage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
RAW is in contrast: one side, the general rule, says to use the exception only when the monster starts its turn into an area of that particular type; the other, the monsters' descriptions, always say "area/areas and/or persistent damage".
If it was a single monster saying that, one could call it an exception to the general rule. Since they all say the same, IMO the general rule has to be applied, and instantaneous area effects inflict the full damage.
Per strict RAW, AoE effects don't deal a single point of damage to the Golem. So you need an interpretation for this case.
I prefer to reduce the damage in case of instantaneous AoE effects and I think it's the most used rule as it's the simplest one to come to. But your ruling is also fine. It's really a question of interpretation.
Thinking more about it, I realize this is a tricky ruling from a balance point of view.
AoE effects deal the same amount of damage than single target spells in PF2.
So it'd be legitimate to deal the same damage on Golems.
But on the other hand, it makes persistent AoE effects extremely strong as they trigger the full damage on casting and the reduced damage every round.
So, from a balance point of view it's tricky to come up with a proper answer.
Magical persistent damage is a rarity, I'm not even sure it exists as of now. For example, if you're hit by an Acid Arrow or by Enervation, the persistent damage is not magical by itself.
If that is how you are reading it, then why even list an entry for Persistent Damage at all?
Some spells have effects that remain even after the spell’s magic is gone. Any ongoing effect that isn’t part of the spell’s duration entry isn’t considered magical.
There are many spells that have Persistent Damage as part of their listed effects. More than a few of them also list a duration. So it seems rather arbitrary to consider that some of them are Magical Persistent Damage while others are not Magical.
So while I can see your argument. I think that is more of a bug than a feature.
Also, I hardly see how you can get affected by magical persistent damage if you can't be affected by magic.
Golems can be affected by magic.
The name "Golem Magical Immunity" is a slight mis-name. Even the actual name of "Golem Antimagic" can also be slightly misleading. It also lists magic that it is affected by - including Persistent Damage.
Magical persistent damage is a rarity, I'm not even sure it exists as of now. For example, if you're hit by an Acid Arrow or by Enervation, the persistent damage is not magical by itself.If that is how you are reading it, then why even list an entry for Persistent Damage at all?
It says persistent effect in the Golem Antimagic entry. It speaks about persistent damage in each Golem, and it looks like an error as a Golem can't be affected by magical persistent damage in any way.
More than a few of them also list a duration.
They are the extreme rarity. And none of them is limited to persistent damage, they all have other effects.
Also, some of them give you persistent damaging attacks (for example Moon Frenzy), but once again we are facing an ongoing effect as otherwise the persistent damage would stop at the end of the spell, and all the persistent damage you'd inflict during the last round would have no effect, which doesn't look like the intention.Golems can be affected by magic.
Nope. If you cast a spell on a Golem it has zero effect. It is affected only by the Harmed By/Healed By/Slowed By effect, not by the spell itself.
More than a few of them also list a duration.They are the extreme rarity. And none of them is limited to persistent damage, they all have other effects.
Also, some of them give you persistent damaging attacks (for example Moon Frenzy)
But not all of them. Blood Vendetta has no effect other than the persistent damage, but has a duration of Varies.
So why would the bleed damage from Blood Vendetta be magical, but the bleed damage from Grim Tendrils not be?
And still - why would the developer who wrote up Golem Antimagic rules list Persistent Damage as something that triggers an effect if Persistent Damage is almost always impossible to be magical and therefore wouldn't trigger any effect?
Golems can be affected by magic.Nope. If you cast a spell on a Golem it has zero effect. It is affected only by the Harmed By/Healed By/Slowed By effect, not by the spell itself.
I think this is a minor difference in our understanding of the words used.
A golem is affected by some magic. It doesn't have the normal effect. But the spell does still produce its normal effect. Including immediate Damage, Persistent Damage, or other things. But in-world it is still the existence of the spell and the spell's effect that is affecting the golem - not some rule text named Golem Antimagic. Golem Antimagic isn't what is causing the effect - the spell is.
More than a few of them also list a duration.They are the extreme rarity. And none of them is limited to persistent damage, they all have other effects.
Also, some of them give you persistent damaging attacks (for example Moon Frenzy)But not all of them. Blood Vendetta has no effect other than the persistent damage, but has a duration of Varies.
So why would the bleed damage from Blood Vendetta be magical, but the bleed damage from Grim Tendrils not be?
I missed Blood Vendetta.
The persistent damage from Blood Vendetta is magical, the one from Enervation isn't. As to why, I have absolutely no idea. Ask the developers is the only answer I can give you.And still - why would the developer who wrote up Golem Antimagic rules list Persistent Damage as something that triggers an effect if Persistent Damage is almost always impossible to be magical and therefore wouldn't trigger any effect?
An error. Or some kind of future-proofing in case we ever have the ability to shut down Golem Antimagic for a round.
Anyway, in the current state of the rules, there's no way you can affect a Golem with magical persistent damage. But it's even worse, there's no way you can make it happen without rewriting entirely Golem Antimagic.A golem is affected by some magic. It doesn't have the normal effect. But the spell does still produce its normal effect. Including immediate Damage, Persistent Damage, or other things. But in-world it is still the existence of the spell and the spell's effect that is affecting the golem - not some rule text named Golem Antimagic. Golem Antimagic isn't what is causing the effect - the spell is.
What??
The spell as no effect, per RAW. You take damage instead of the spell's effect. So no persistent damage for Acid Arrow, you take damage when you target the Golem (you don't even need to hit) and that's all. That's pretty straightforward.Your convoluted explanation as to why you should be affected by persistent damage from a spell that has no effect and hasn't even hit the golem is not RAW that's for sure.
Aren't golems just immune to (most) AoE then since it doesn't target?
Per strict RAW, they are immune to instantaneous AoE magical effects. But I think it's not RAI.
Yeah, it sounds like what the developers are trying to create with Golem Antimagic is fairly straightforward and works fine.
But if you read the rules too carefully you can end up with something that is nearly non-functional. Instant damage AOE spells don't work - for example Fireball doesn't work against Wood Golems. A couple particular spells with Persistent Damage are functional, the rest are not.
Isn't this what the Ambiguous Rules rule is for? If a strict literal reading of the rules results in something non-functional, run the game with a simpler interpretation that does do what it says on the tin.
Isn't this what the Ambiguous Rules rule is for? If a strict literal reading of the rules results in something non-functional, run the game with a simpler interpretation that does do what it says on the tin.
If you manage to make up a "simpler" interpretation that allows persistent damage to trigger damage, then I'd be happy to hear about it.
But I think your simpler interpretation will just not be functional at all.
Well, given the comments earlier in this thread, that is how Golems have been being run for years.
Direct Target spells deal the first damage amount.
Area Spells or spells that create Persistent Damage use the second damage amount.
And a spell that does both direct damage and persistent damage - like Acid Arrow - do both.
And a spell that does both direct damage and persistent damage - like Acid Arrow - do both.
So if I cast Produce Flame, I deal the direct damage and the persistent damage every round forever without a single check? Seems like a very strong houserule.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why wouldn't I just run it like the normal spell and just replace its effects as they are applied to the Golem.
So Produce Flame gets cast. The caster makes a spell attack roll. On a success, the spell successfully targets the golem and deals damage. The Golem Antimagic replaces the damage with the golem's entry - so for a lot of golems it would deal 0 damage. For wood golems it would deal 4d8 damage. If the spell attack roll is a critical success, then the spell deals damage and persistent damage. The damage and persistent damage both get replaced by the Golem Antimagic entry. For a wood golem the immediate damage is 4d8 and the persistent damage is 2d6. And the persistent damage can be removed with flat checks as normal for persistent damage.
So the spell still does its normal things. But the way that it affects the golem is replaced. The spell still affects the golem, but in a different way than normal.
Well colloquial wording is one of the main reasons why sometimes we can't have nice things. For example an easy interpretation of AoE could be that the effect targets everything in its area indiscriminantly, however they can't use that wording because (among others) that would clash with the rules for concealment, so AoE ony affects those in the area. This however clashes with other rules, e.g. Golem Antimagic.
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.
Simple interpretation.
1) spells do not effect golems except spells of a specific type.
2) if spell is of a specific type that would normally affect the golem (targeted or in AoE) it take the first listed amount of damage
3) If the spell creates an area of affect that has a duration or causes ongoing effects, use the second listed amount for each affect.
Lets see examples
Flesh Golem- harmed by fire (5d8, 3d4 from areas or persistent damage);
hit with produce flame 5d8.
In area of fireball 5d8.
Wall of fire if start turn in wall 3d4.
If the Golem start its turn in the area of ash cloud, 3d4.
Obsidian Golem - harmed by sonic (8d10, 2d10 from area or persistent damage)
Hit with biting words 8d10
In area of haunting hymn 8d10
unable to find spell that causes area or persistent sonic damage
Clay Golem - harmed by cold or water (5d10, 2d6 from areas or persistent damage)
hit by ray of frost 5d10
in area of chilling spray 5d10
starts turn in obscuring mist 2d6
Why wouldn't I just run it like the normal spell and just replace its effects as they are applied to the Golem.
So Produce Flame gets cast. The caster makes a spell attack roll. On a success, the spell successfully targets the golem and deals damage. The Golem Antimagic replaces the damage with the golem's entry - so for a lot of golems it would deal 0 damage. For wood golems it would deal 4d8 damage. If the spell attack roll is a critical success, then the spell deals damage and persistent damage. The damage and persistent damage both get replaced by the Golem Antimagic entry. For a wood golem the immediate damage is 4d8 and the persistent damage is 2d6. And the persistent damage can be removed with flat checks as normal for persistent damage.
So the spell still does its normal things. But the way that it affects the golem is replaced. The spell still affects the golem, but in a different way than normal.
This is how I run it in my games.
This is how I run it in my games.Why wouldn't I just run it like the normal spell and just replace its effects as they are applied to the Golem.
So Produce Flame gets cast. The caster makes a spell attack roll. On a success, the spell successfully targets the golem and deals damage. The Golem Antimagic replaces the damage with the golem's entry - so for a lot of golems it would deal 0 damage. For wood golems it would deal 4d8 damage. If the spell attack roll is a critical success, then the spell deals damage and persistent damage. The damage and persistent damage both get replaced by the Golem Antimagic entry. For a wood golem the immediate damage is 4d8 and the persistent damage is 2d6. And the persistent damage can be removed with flat checks as normal for persistent damage.
So the spell still does its normal things. But the way that it affects the golem is replaced. The spell still affects the golem, but in a different way than normal.
There is a huuuuuge difference in between having to actually hit your spell and simply just targeting the Golem, just saying. How is PFS handling this?
I don't think this means Persistent Damage. It says a persistent effect. When Paizo means a defined game term, they use capital letters. This is an example of natural language. They mean an affect that stays in existence, as opposed to an instantaneous affect.
Hmm... Interesting. Because in the Golem Antimagic entry of each of the golems it does use the term 'persistent damage'.
Golem Antimagic harmed by fire (4d8, 2d6 from areas or persistent damage); healed by plant (area 2d6 HP); slowed by earth
Which is indeed different than what it lists in the general Golem rules
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.
There is a huuuuuge difference in between having to actually hit your spell and simply just targeting the Golem, just saying.
Yes. But we are all used to that. That is why saving throw spells are generally considered more reliable than spell attack spells.
So Produce Flame gets cast. The caster makes a spell attack roll. On a success, the spell successfully targets the golem and deals damage.
So you houserule entirely Golem Antimagic. Well, sure, it's "simpler" to create your own rule.
As I was pointing out, you can't apply persistent damage without rewriting entirely Golem Antimagic. I don't find that "simple", but to each their own.
There is a huuuuuge difference in between having to actually hit your spell and simply just targeting the Golem, just saying.Yes. But we are all used to that. That is why saving throw spells are generally considered more reliable than spell attack spells.
Yeah, but the often quoted poster child anti Clay Golem spell Ray of Frost is targeted.
I'm reading what it says in the Golem Antimagic rule for general golems and the Golem Antimagic entry for each golem and following what it says there to the best of my natural language understanding.
I'm not going through and scouring the CRB looking for loopholes and inconsistencies and ways of reading and interpreting various words and capitalization of terms in order to try and make as few spells do as little effect as possible.
I'm feeling that it is a bit rude that you keep calling that process a houserule.
There is a huuuuuge difference in between having to actually hit your spell and simply just targeting the Golem, just saying. How is PFS handling this?This is how I run it in my games.Why wouldn't I just run it like the normal spell and just replace its effects as they are applied to the Golem.
So Produce Flame gets cast. The caster makes a spell attack roll. On a success, the spell successfully targets the golem and deals damage. The Golem Antimagic replaces the damage with the golem's entry - so for a lot of golems it would deal 0 damage. For wood golems it would deal 4d8 damage. If the spell attack roll is a critical success, then the spell deals damage and persistent damage. The damage and persistent damage both get replaced by the Golem Antimagic entry. For a wood golem the immediate damage is 4d8 and the persistent damage is 2d6. And the persistent damage can be removed with flat checks as normal for persistent damage.
So the spell still does its normal things. But the way that it affects the golem is replaced. The spell still affects the golem, but in a different way than normal.
The same way PFS handles most things, with GMs running the game to their best understanding of the rules. There isn't some giant tome of "this is the official ruling for everything debated." There are occasionally campaign rulings on specific questions in a FAQ, but that's the exception, not the rule.
Yeah, but the often quoted poster child anti Clay Golem spell Ray of Frost is targeted.
And when you attack a Goblin with Ray of Frost you also have to make a spell attack roll in order to cause any affect to the target.
I'm reading what it says in the Golem Antimagic rule for general golems and the Golem Antimagic entry for each golem and following what it says there to the best of my natural language understanding.
I'm not going through and scouring the CRB looking for loopholes and inconsistencies and ways of reading and interpreting various words and capitalization of terms in order to try and make as few spells do as little effect as possible.
I'm feeling that it is a bit rude that you keep calling that process a houserule.
"Harmed By Any magic of this type that targets the golem causes it to take the listed amount of damage"
I'm not bringing some obscure rule but the Golem Antimagic ones, just saying that the actual rule is: You cast Produce Flame and deal the Harmed By damage without rolling any check as you deal the damage when you target the Golem.
In that circumstance (RAW) it's a bit hard to determine how to handle persistent damage.
So, maybe I'm a bit rude (I am certainly), but I think I can safely say that asking for a roll is houseruling in the current circumstance.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can understand and follow the logic of having attack roll spells affect the golems automatically.
What I don't agree with is deciding that since Fireball doesn't target the Wood Golem and doesn't cause an area that the Golem can start its turn in, that the spell doesn't affect the golem at all. Neither does Blistering Invective.
It just seems like a 'haha gotcha' type of ruling to say that even though these spells have the right type, they still don't affect the golems. Because they don't quite follow the requirements just right to qualify.