Draconic Rage damage has the Arcane and Evocation trait.
Arcane: This magic comes from the arcane tradition, which is built on logic and rationality. Anything with this trait is magical.
Evocation: Effects and magic items with this trait are associated with the evocation school of magic, typically involving energy and elemental forces.
Are magic immune creatures like golems and will-o-wisps immune to draconic rage damage?
I've always played any magic immune creature is immune to Draconic Rage damage. Magic immune creatures are fairly rare overall, but golems seem to show up quite a bit.
How do most people run this? What is your rule basis for doing so if magic immune creatures are not immune to draconic rage damage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Worth noting that if you treat golems as immune to things like draconic rage or striking runes, that also means the right element of draconic rage or property runes would trigger their vulnerability. An adamantine golem would be virtually impossible for a martial to hurt, unless there's a corrosive run involved in which case the martial deals 9d10 damage a hit. Feels too wonky to be true, so I say weapon runes at the very least are exempt from this.
No it isn't a consensus that's the problem. The Golem Antimagic as described can be interpreted affecting magical effects of Strike Runes and any Property Runes too. So only the damage that triggers "Harmed By" will affect it and your weapons and unarmed attacks will work like they wasn't magical. What's makes them very, very resistant.
The best way to deal with Golens is using alchemical itens like bombs onde they basically ignore their entire mechanics at all.
Hmm. I decided striking runes are not affected by Golem immunity as that would just make fighting golems nearly impossible.
I could do the same for Draconic Rage as otherwise it limits it when Draconic Rage already deals with the double damage reduction against resist all or resist their element.
Good point out on wisps. I had been looking at Magic Immunity as a whole with the spells thing a clarification of what magic affects them. I can use specific over general for that ruling.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Golem antimagic only applies to spells and magical abilities.
Abilities are always possessed by characters and creatures. Items are not abilities and are therefore exempt from golem antimagic.
As it list spells separately and specifically, a Golem would still be immune to most spells, even if they came from an item.
This, to me, seems like an easy and straightforward enough interpretation that avoids most of the oddities described in the above posts.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Draconic Rage damage has the Arcane and Evocation trait.
Arcane: This magic comes from the arcane tradition, which is built on logic and rationality. Anything with this trait is magical.
Evocation: Effects and magic items with this trait are associated with the evocation school of magic, typically involving energy and elemental forces.
Are magic immune creatures like golems and will-o-wisps immune to draconic rage damage?
I've always played any magic immune creature is immune to Draconic Rage damage. Magic immune creatures are fairly rare overall, but golems seem to show up quite a bit.
How do most people run this? What is your rule basis for doing so if magic immune creatures are not immune to draconic rage damage.
I would have thought the answer to this was more widely known. This is a solved problem. A Golem, eg the Wood Golem if you want to refesher on the actual text read all the way to the bottom, is immune to spells and magical abilities. It is not immune to magical damage.
A strike with a weapon is not a magical ability, so it can damage the golem. The damage of that weapon can be magical (if it has a fundamental rune) but the strike itself is not. It is the strike which is the ability. Why - check the rules for subordinate actions.The subordinate action doesn’t gain any of the traits of the larger action unless specified. Similarly note that Any ongoing effect that isn’t part of the spell’s duration entry isn’t considered magical. Basically what the rules say is that traits aren’t inherited.
The bottom line is immunity to magical effects would be a catch all and give you immunity to magical damage as well. But immunity to spells and magical abilities does not.
The terms effects and abilities are different but people miss that - one is the result the other is an action you can do.
So golem immunity counts if your action has one of the magical traits but otherwise does not apply.
Draconic Rage damage will add fine to a strike versus a golem.
...
Works for me.
OK I understand that items aren't magical abilities too but I still have a doubt, what are magical abilities?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
OK I understand that items aren't magical abilities too but I still have a doubt, what are magical abilities?
Both terms are in the CRB glossary. Effects are the result of an ability. An ability is a specific rule that allows you to do something. Eg a feat or spell etc. Basically everything the rules say you can do is an ability.
It is a bit messy as the base rules are not a well defined set, and secondly an ability score is something else.
Thanks to point the reference Gortle but now after reading the CRB glossary by myself I notice that the text says:
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.
Nowhere here says "that you do something" like you have to do something like use an action, just that's a term that "referring to rules that provide an exception to the basic rules".
So I don't see why Strike runes, something that magically add extra damage dices to weapons/unarmed attacks damage changing their weapons/unarmed attack basic rule doesn't meet the magical ability criteria. Same for Draconic Rage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
because when you hit someone with a weapon you're taking the strike action, and the strike action clearly isn't a magical ability.
Thanks to point the reference Gortle but now after reading the CRB glossary by myself I notice that the text says:
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.Nowhere here says "that you do something" like you have to do something like use an action, just that's a term that "referring to rules that provide an exception to the basic rules".
What is in the glossary is not the wording I would have used - notice I paraphrased deliberately. Yes I agree an ability can be inactive by the wording Paizo uses there. To put is together you need to read the glossary definition of effect An effect is the result of an ability and the Effects rule Anything you do in the game has an effect, plus the common language meaning of ability. Abilities are about doing.
So I don't see why Strike runes, something that magically add extra damage dices to weapons/unarmed attacks damage changing their weapons/unarmed attack basic rule doesn't meet the magical ability criteria. Same for Draconic Rage.
Because the Strike is not magical. The damage is magic but that is just an effect not an ability.
The key here is not whether an ability is active or not, but rather that abilities are different to effects. The ability in use is the strike.
The golem immunity is immunity to magical abilities not magical effects.
Yes I agree this is a bit complex. Blame Paizo not me. They are the one who put both terms in the rules glossary and use the terms differently. Ask Paizo to simplify things if it bugs you but this is what the rules say. The reason I guess is to make golem immune to all types of spells and magic , but not weapons.
I'm going to allow it because the rules are unclear on it. I don't know what is intended. I don't know what the evocation and arcane traits have to do with draconic rage other than create confusion as to how the ability interacts with magic immunity which is another highly unclear ability that could use some real work on it. Perhaps they put the traits on for counter type spells like shadow siphon, I don't know.
Draconic rage already has the problem of double dipping against Resistance All and resistance to energy type. No use hamstringing it more by making magic immune creatures shrug the damage off.
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.
Golem antimagic only applies to spells and magical abilities.
Abilities are always possessed by characters and creatures. Items are not abilities and are therefore exempt from golem antimagic.
As it list spells separately and specifically, a Golem would still be immune to most spells, even if they came from an item.
This, to me, seems like an easy and straightforward enough interpretation that avoids most of the oddities described in the above posts.
It is not far wrong in practice, but the logic is wrong. Items have abilities too, or perhaps have abilities that characters can use.
It is just that the most common ways that you use items is to Strike or the Interact to Activate ability. Neither of those abilities is magical. So they work fine against golems. Items that you have to Cast a Spell to activate will typically be stopped by Golem Antimagic. Then there are mundane and alchemical items that are just not magical at all.
Yes there are a couple of odd corner cases. An alchemical fire is not magical so it gets Golems, but also a potion of Fire Breathing is magical but using it is just a normal Interact so it will affect a Golem normally. But I guess when you thing about it, it is no worse than a magic weapon still hurting a Golem.
Draconic rage already has the problem of double dipping against Resistance All and resistance to energy type. No use hamstringing it more by making magic immune creatures shrug the damage off.Do you mean Draconic rage has some specific interaction with resistance and Resistance All I don't see?
Like every energy damage would interact with both. And only be reduced once, by the worst/highest of specific resistance and Resistance All. So I see no double dipping.
It has been clearly explained that if you hit someone with resistance all, then you reduce the damage types by the resist all. The weapon damage whatever it is slashing or what not would be reduced and the draconic rage damage would also be reduced by the resist all just as all your different runes would be reduced. Resist All reduces a lot damage if you have a lot of different types.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It has been clearly explained that if you hit someone with resistance all, then you reduce the damage types by the resist all. The weapon damage whatever it is slashing or what not would be reduced and the draconic rage damage would also be reduced by the resist all just as all your different runes would be reduced. Resist All reduces a lot damage if you have a lot of different types.Draconic rage already has the problem of double dipping against Resistance All and resistance to energy type. No use hamstringing it more by making magic immune creatures shrug the damage off.Do you mean Draconic rage has some specific interaction with resistance and Resistance All I don't see?
Like every energy damage would interact with both. And only be reduced once, by the worst/highest of specific resistance and Resistance All. So I see no double dipping.
Just to be clear golems tend to have Resistance physical X, not resist all.
Further If you have more than one type of resistance that would apply to the same instance of damage, use only the highest applicable resistance value. So assuming that different types of damage are different instances of damage (rules don't define this) then a strike that dealt bludgeoning and fire damage would have the bludgeoning damage reduced by the resist all and the fire damage reduced by the higher of the fire resistance or the resist all.
It has been clearly explained that if you hit someone with resistance all, then you reduce the damage types by the resist all. The weapon damage whatever it is slashing or what not would be reduced and the draconic rage damage would also be reduced by the resist all just as all your different runes would be reduced. Resist All reduces a lot damage if you have a lot of different types.Draconic rage already has the problem of double dipping against Resistance All and resistance to energy type. No use hamstringing it more by making magic immune creatures shrug the damage off.Do you mean Draconic rage has some specific interaction with resistance and Resistance All I don't see?
Like every energy damage would interact with both. And only be reduced once, by the worst/highest of specific resistance and Resistance All. So I see no double dipping.Just to be clear golems tend to have Resistance physical X, not resist all.
Further If you have more than one type of resistance that would apply to the same instance of damage, use only the highest applicable resistance value. So assuming that different types of damage are different instances of damage (rules don't define this) then a strike that dealt bludgeoning and fire damage would have the bludgeoning damage reduced by the resist all and the fire damage reduced by the higher of the fire resistance or the resist all.
The golem issue was magic immunity with the Arcane and Evocation traits which implied Dragon rage was magical energy damage. As the rules are not clear on this, I'm content to let magic immune creatures suffer draconic rage damage.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also just as another point of clarity, dragon instinct makes the rage action itself has magic traits, but nothing in the ability makes your damage or attacks magical. So saying the damage has the arcane or evocation traits isn't really correct.
For another, while there's some vagueness in the rules, applying this consistently means that martials are essentially unable to harm golems at higher levels, which doesn't really seem to make sense either.
The golem issue was magic immunity with the Arcane and Evocation traits which implied Dragon rage was magical energy damage. As the rules are not clear on this, I'm content to let magic immune creatures suffer draconic rage damage.
It really depends exactly how the immunity is written. Talking about magic immunity is almost pointless as it is too varied. Paizo uses slightly different language in each case and it is important. So I'd prefer you use a specific example. For golems Dragon Rage does add to the damage from the strike and that affects the golem fine. It just has to worry about the resistance.
Thanks to point the reference Gortle but now after reading the CRB glossary by myself I notice that the text says:
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.Nowhere here says "that you do something" like you have to do something like use an action, just that's a term that "referring to rules that provide an exception to the basic rules".What is in the glossary is not the wording I would have used - notice I paraphrased deliberately. Yes I agree an ability can be inactive by the wording Paizo uses there. To put is together you need to read the glossary definition of effect An effect is the result of an ability and the Effects rule Anything you do in the game has an effect, plus the common language meaning of ability. Abilities are about doing.
So I don't see why Strike runes, something that magically add extra damage dices to weapons/unarmed attacks damage changing their weapons/unarmed attack basic rule doesn't meet the magical ability criteria. Same for Draconic Rage.Because the Strike is not magical. The damage is magic but that is just an effect not an ability.
The key here is not whether an ability is active or not, but rather that abilities are different to effects. The ability in use is the strike.
The golem immunity is immunity to magical abilities not magical effects.
Yes I agree this is a bit complex. Blame Paizo not me. They are the one who put both terms in the rules glossary and use the terms differently. Ask Paizo to simplify things if it bugs you but this is what the rules say. The reason I guess is to make golem immune to all types of spells and magic , but not weapons.
IMO it's the opposite. The Effects rule is that poorly written. Effect can be a consequence of an action but there are many passive effects that aren't active actions like for example Frightful Presence.
This that's makes abilities look-like actions when they currently aren't and this lead to this wrong interpretation:The key here is not whether an ability is active or not, but rather that abilities are different to effects. The ability in use is the strike.
You are making ability = action and even going more further saying that Strike not having magical traits your Strike isn't magical but Strikes done with fundamental runes are modified to be magical.
I'm going to allow it because the rules are unclear on it. I don't know what is intended. I don't know what the evocation and arcane traits have to do with draconic rage other than create confusion as to how the ability interacts with magic immunity which is another highly unclear ability that could use some real work on it. Perhaps they put the traits on for counter type spells like shadow siphon, I don't know.
Draconic rage already has the problem of double dipping against Resistance All and resistance to energy type. No use hamstringing it more by making magic immune creatures shrug the damage off.
It's fair IMO one Golems anti-magic + Golems physical resistances already makes them too strong.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the damage from weapons with Runes is not magical, then we have a problem with the following type of creatures :
"Incorporeal creatures usually have immunity to effects or conditions that require a physical body, like disease, poison, and precision damage. They usually have resistance against all damage (except force damage and damage from Strikes with the ghost touch property rune), with double the resistance against non-magical damage."
No you are reading me completely wrong. In fact almost totally the opposite of what I wrote. Slow down and try again. I never said ability was an action. I never said a Strike was magical. I did say the damage from a Strike can be magical.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is why Paizo should make some of their rules like hardness and magic immunity more clear. These types of debates should not be happening and are frustrating to players and DMs alike.
This is why Paizo should make some of their rules like hardness and magic immunity more clear. These types of debates should not be happening and are frustrating to players and DMs alike.
I don't agree that magic immunity is that bad. I am able to get to a conclusive answer with no remaining problems.
However many other rules are just unclear or non existent:
Hardness, striking objects, damage instance, BattleForms etc.
Then there are the rules that are clearly wrong or contradictory. Like healing and Undead, or incorporeal.
That is before we get into individual abilities.
Strikes done with fundamental runes are modified to be magical.Whatever else you discuss, this is not true. I'm pretty sure you won't find any rule support for this. Also traits aren't inherited 'upwards' as a rule.
Incidentally, trait inheritance was a rule at one point, but was explicitly removed for this very reason.
What's the problem with Hardness???
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What's the problem with Hardness???
whether it is resistance or something else. Cue long discussion on blocking with shields. It's not really that big of a deal, but people disagree.
What's the problem with Hardness???
Some people run it as resist all and some people run it as aggregate damage from all sources added together, then apply hardness.
Shield block states it triggers against a physical attack, which usually only includes bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage in damage descriptions, but uses hardness to reduce damage. So does energy damage from energy runes completely blow through shield hardness or does all the damage add together or do you treat it like resist all? The rules are not clear.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is why Paizo should make some of their rules like hardness and magic immunity more clear. These types of debates should not be happening and are frustrating to players and DMs alike.I don't agree that magic immunity is that bad. I am able to get to a conclusive answer with no remaining problems.
However many other rules are just unclear or non existent:
Hardness, striking objects, damage instance, BattleForms etc.
Then there are the rules that are clearly wrong or contradictory. Like healing and Undead, or incorporeal.That is before we get into individual abilities.
I don't know how you see it that way when runes and draconic rage has the arcane and evocation traits which when you read those descriptions indicates they are magic.
Golem Antimagic
A golem is immune to spells and magical abilities other than its own, but each type of golem is affected by a few types of magic in special ways. These exceptions are listed in shortened form in the golem's stat block, with the full rules appearing here. If an entry lists multiple types (such as “cold and water”), either type of spell can affect the golem.
Draconic rage could easily be considered a magical ability since it has the traits of a magical school and arcane tradition. You can't really be part of the Arcane tradition without being magical or part of the evocation school.
I would say that adds a very confusing element if you do a general reading.
You're arguing the magical trait is necessary to be a magical ability, but
But the Arcane traits says the following:
Arcane: This magic comes from the arcane tradition, which is built on logic and rationality. Anything with this trait is magical.
Why add the Arcane traits if the ability isn't magical? To add confusion?
With a lack of clarity from the designers, I think it would not be so far fetched for a DM to make Draconic Rage ineffective against golems. I even understand why some are concerned that magical runes aren't supposed to work against golems.
I handwave it myself, but I don't believe the rules are clear at all as to what the designers intended. I don't know why they added the Arcane and Evocation trait to Draconic Rage. Why do that?
Does a spell like Shadow Siphon work against it?
The trigger for Shadow Siphion indicates a spell or magical affect deals damage. Can you use it on Draconic Rage? Or a breath weapon?
The only reason I'm going to ignore is not because I'm convinced by your rules arguments, but because Draconic Rage sucks if it is blocked by Magic Immunity. Same with weapon runes.
It falls under the "Too bad to be ruled that way" ruling.
Same with Hardness in my opinion, especially with shields. If aggregate damage is blocked by hardness, then hardness sucks. Shields will get blown up with ease and quickly as levels rise.
I'd rather the rule be clearer, but I always tend to want to make things work well for the player that chooses an option rather than run it so that the option appears weak and not worthwhile to take.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know how you see it that way when runes and draconic rage has the arcane and evocation traits which when you read those descriptions indicates they are magic.
Because it is irrelevant. The wording of the immunity matters. A Golem does not have immunity to magic, it has immunity to spells and magical abilities. Those are game concepts we can define. Those words mean specific things.
So what if Rage is magical you don't Rage a Golem you Strike a Golem, and Strike is not a magical ability.
You are getting hung up on this missing rule. Don't.
In CRB page 451 this section was silently removed from the CRB 2nd printing without explanation or notice. Presumably because it was wrong. This rule does not exist anymore:
Damage types and Traits
When an attack deals a type of damage, the attack action gains that trait. For example, the Strikes and attack actions you use wielding a sword when its flaming rune is
active gain the fire trait, since the rune gives the weapon the ability to deal fire damage.
Think of the Rage action as like say casting a Strength buff on your character. It is not targeting the golem at all, you are just doing more damage or rather additional damage.
Maybe this was be removed by mistake?
I remember when I played 3.5 the rule that excepts prestige class from multiclass penalty was removed in 1st 3.5. But when Premium Reprint was release it was there and was said that it was removed by mistake.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know how you see it that way when runes and draconic rage has the arcane and evocation traits which when you read those descriptions indicates they are magic.Because it is irrelevant. The wording of the immunity matters. A Golem does not have immunity to magic, it has immunity to spells and magical abilities. Those are game concepts we can define. Those words mean specific things.
So what if Rage is magical you don't Rage a Golem you Strike a Golem, and Strike is not a magical ability.
You are getting hung up on this missing rule. Don't.
In CRB page 451 this section was silently removed from the CRB 2nd printing without explanation or notice. Presumably because it was wrong. This rule does not exist anymore:
Damage types and Traits
When an attack deals a type of damage, the attack action gains that trait. For example, the Strikes and attack actions you use wielding a sword when its flaming rune is
active gain the fire trait, since the rune gives the weapon the ability to deal fire damage.Think of the Rage action as like say casting a Strength buff on your character. It is not targeting the golem at all, you are just doing more damage or rather additional damage.
Look, the arcane and evocation traits should not have been added to Draconic rage if the damage is not magical.
That is a big problem I have with PF2, the adding of confusing rules where you have to sift a bunch of other rules to find some rule that was "silently removed" in a later printing which is supposed to obviate the Arcane and Evocation traits being added to Draconic Rage.
That is what I call bad rules writing leaving players and DMs to debate these things and rely on your viewpoint that the "silently removed rule" supersedes the addition of the Arcane and Evocation traits to dragon rage which may very well have been intended to make that damage magical.
But we'll never know or at least not soon given the designers never seem to answer for this stuff. They leave it in until someone finds some convincing rules argument for their table one way or the other. like you finding the "silently removed" ruling that you use to override the draconic rage is magical damage and that is why it has the Arcane and Evocation traits.
It is just irritating to have these rules written in this contradictory or confusing manner where you have to look in several different sections of a book to find some rule that supposedly overrides this other rule.
It should be cleared up or clarified with unnecessary traits or words removed.
I don't know how you see it that way when runes and draconic rage has the arcane and evocation traits which when you read those descriptions indicates they are magic.Because it is irrelevant. The wording of the immunity matters. A Golem does not have immunity to magic, it has immunity to spells and magical abilities. Those are game concepts we can define. Those words mean specific things.
So what if Rage is magical you don't Rage a Golem you Strike a Golem, and Strike is not a magical ability.
You are getting hung up on this missing rule. Don't.
In CRB page 451 this section was silently removed from the CRB 2nd printing without explanation or notice. Presumably because it was wrong. This rule does not exist anymore:
Damage types and Traits
When an attack deals a type of damage, the attack action gains that trait. For example, the Strikes and attack actions you use wielding a sword when its flaming rune is
active gain the fire trait, since the rune gives the weapon the ability to deal fire damage.Think of the Rage action as like say casting a Strength buff on your character. It is not targeting the golem at all, you are just doing more damage or rather additional damage.
Look, the arcane and evocation traits should not have been added to Draconic rage if the damage is not magical.
But the damage is magical and it is right for the traits to be added. This does matter for things like a Shadow which has double resistance to non magical damage.
This is a little complex but it is not that hard.That is a big problem I have with PF2, the adding of confusing rules where you have to sift a bunch of other rules to find some rule that was "silently removed" in a later printing which is supposed to obviate the Arcane and Evocation traits being added to Draconic Rage.
Yes I agree the rules are confusing. That Paizo has acknowledged that and is moving to fix it in the remaster is admirable. But I don't want the rules dumbed down too much. I like a rich environment, some of the land mines could do with being removed.
Where Paizo screw up is they don't always acknowledge their mistakes - they do on many occasions but this is one they didn't - or when they gaslight the player base by saying the rules weren't clear but they were - the flanking rules.
Now I'm an adult and a human, and I realise the complexity of it all and the fact they are a coporation with lots of actors and interactions so I can make an overall value judgement and still support Paizo despite this. In fact Paizo are trying to improve things and mostly act in good faith. Unlike a particular competitor.
But we'll never know or at least not soon given the designers never seem to answer for this stuff. They leave it in until someone finds some convincing rules argument for their table one way or the other
Yeah I do think they have a policy of waiting to see if the community works it out for them. It seems they just don't give enough time to their staff to think about the rules, so they sit on the hard problems. The errata process seems rushed. I don't believe they understand the problems with their Incorporeal trait yet and they wrote a whole feature in Dark Archive on it and it is totally broken.
Importantly they allow feedback on their forums. So there is hope these will be resolved.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Draconic rage could easily be considered a magical ability since it has the traits of a magical school and arcane tradition
Draconic Rage is a magical ability. That's abundantly clear, full stop.
Golems are therefore immune to Draconic Rage.
Luckily, under no circumstance are you ever applying Draconic Rage to a golem. So this is irrelevant to the discussion.
Maybe this was be removed by mistake?
It was removed on purpose after someone pointed out to a Paizo developer that trait inheritance meant you couldn't attack with a weapon that had a Flaming rune on it while underwater.
I don't know how you see it that way when runes and draconic rage has the arcane and evocation traits which when you read those descriptions indicates they are magic.Because it is irrelevant. The wording of the immunity matters. A Golem does not have immunity to magic, it has immunity to spells and magical abilities. Those are game concepts we can define. Those words mean specific things.
So what if Rage is magical you don't Rage a Golem you Strike a Golem, and Strike is not a magical ability.
You are getting hung up on this missing rule. Don't.
In CRB page 451 this section was silently removed from the CRB 2nd printing without explanation or notice. Presumably because it was wrong. This rule does not exist anymore:
Damage types and Traits
When an attack deals a type of damage, the attack action gains that trait. For example, the Strikes and attack actions you use wielding a sword when its flaming rune is
active gain the fire trait, since the rune gives the weapon the ability to deal fire damage.Think of the Rage action as like say casting a Strength buff on your character. It is not targeting the golem at all, you are just doing more damage or rather additional damage.
Look, the arcane and evocation traits should not have been added to Draconic rage if the damage is not magical.
But the damage is magical and it is right for the traits to be added. This does matter for things like a Shadow which has double resistance to non magical damage.
This is a little complex but it is not that hard.That is a big problem I have with PF2, the adding of confusing rules where you have to sift a bunch of other rules to find some rule that was "silently removed" in a later printing which is supposed to obviate the Arcane and Evocation traits being added to Draconic Rage.Yes I agree the rules are confusing. That Paizo has acknowledged that and is moving to...
It's unnecessary, badly written, and badly indexed.
When I think of complex, I think of something like particle physics or advanced mathematics.
This is basic reading comprehension, low level math, and the ability to memorize very basic rules interactions.
I understand Paizo's limited resources and time. I also understand they ported over some rules like hardness without thinking about how it interacts with the new resistance rules, damage types, and the like.
I don't mind the use of traits. It's also obvious the rules grew very large and they wrote parts of it that stayed in without thinking of how it interacted with other rules that ended up creating confusing situations like this one.
Then they put in rule zero that means "if it's too good or too bad then fit it at your table" which is fine. I've done that for years across editions.
I do hope some of this gets cleaned up in this remaster.
As much as I'm going with draconic rage works against golems, as written I don't think it would and I'm certainly not sure if the designers intended draconic rage damage to work against golems which given the number of golems in modules, that can be very hard on the damage if a draconic rage barbarian can't smash them well since the casters also can't do much to them.
I hope some of this stuff is on a list of things to clarify. Since the Evocation trait will be gone soon, that will at least fix that part. I'm completely fine with them getting rid of magical schools. They never did much for the game other than created unnecessary tracking for the wizard specialist to ensure he picked the right school spells.
Draconic rage could easily be considered a magical ability since it has the traits of a magical school and arcane traditionDraconic Rage is a magical ability. That's abundantly clear, full stop.
Golems are therefore immune to Draconic Rage.
Luckily, under no circumstance are you ever applying Draconic Rage to a golem. So this is irrelevant to the discussion.
Maybe this was be removed by mistake?It was removed on purpose after someone pointed out to a Paizo developer that trait inheritance meant you couldn't attack with a weapon that had a Flaming rune on it while underwater.
Which once again leads to an intent discussion. Immune to magical abilities certainly doesn't mean immune to using the ability. They clearly meant immune to the effect created by the magical ability, which in this case is the Draconic Rage damage which has the Arcane and Evocation traits.
If I were doing a RAW reading, I'd make golems immune to the draconic rage damage as I was doing. As I stated I'm still not convinced the designers did not intend golems to be immune to draconic rage damage. As it makes draconic rage worse, I'll go with the idea they aren't immune and let the damage effect golems because draconic rage sucks otherwise.
This would be like me arguing that since Giant Damage has no traits indicating it is magical, the Giant instinct damage is reduced by twice the resist all of incorporeal creatures.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is basic reading comprehension, low level math, and the ability to memorize very basic rules interactions.
I can't respond to this and be polite.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Immune to magical abilities certainly doesn't mean immune to using the ability. They clearly meant immune to the effect created by the magical ability, which in this case is the Draconic Rage damage which has the Arcane and Evocation traits.
The strike you're making has no such traits.
Do you reduce the to-hit of characters under Inspire Courage when they attack a golem? Do you prevent characters with runed weapons from attacking the golem?
There's no RAW to support nerfing dragon barbarians against golems, nor any indication that it's RAI either.
It seems especially bizarre for you to choose to nerf them when in other threads you've expressed your opinion that dragon barbarians are weak, so why houserule them worse?
This would be like me arguing that since Giant Damage has no traits indicating it is magical, the Giant instinct damage is reduced by twice the resist all of incorporeal creatures.
I mean, yeah, unless you had something else that let you deal damage to incorporeal creatures, why wouldn't you? There's no reason to think giant's rage would let you bypass incorporeal resistance.
This is basic reading comprehension, low level math, and the ability to memorize very basic rules interactions.I can't respond to this and be polite.
Your lack of politeness would not bother me as coming from someone I do not know personally would not mean anything. You literally could not insult me with your best effort as I have no emotional connection with you and any insults would be lacking any truth or effect on someone like myself.
What I stated is the absolute truth. These games are not complex. They are simple rules written with a wide audience in mind indexed in a format that allows a wide audience to comprehend the rules and use them effectively, often riddled with inconsistencies and errors that cause debates and such on the forum.
Immune to magical abilities certainly doesn't mean immune to using the ability. They clearly meant immune to the effect created by the magical ability, which in this case is the Draconic Rage damage which has the Arcane and Evocation traits.The strike you're making has no such traits.
Do you reduce the to-hit of characters under Inspire Courage when they attack a golem? Do you prevent characters with runed weapons from attacking the golem?
There's no RAW to support nerfing dragon barbarians against golems, nor any indication that it's RAI either.
It seems especially bizarre for you to choose to nerf them when in other threads you've expressed your opinion that dragon barbarians are weak, so why houserule them worse?
This would be like me arguing that since Giant Damage has no traits indicating it is magical, the Giant instinct damage is reduced by twice the resist all of incorporeal creatures.I mean, yeah, unless you had something else that let you deal damage to incorporeal creatures, why wouldn't you? There's no reason to think giant's rage would let you bypass incorporeal resistance.
The reason draconic barbarians were viewed as weak is because I was running the Draconic damage as magical damage and thus impacted by magic immunity as well as the double resistance all issues.
The reason I do not double the resistance from Giant Rage damage against incorporeal creatures is because Giant Rage I look at as additive and not a separate source of damage. It adds damage to the over-sized weapon you use to make the instinct work.
The reason I was running draconic rage as I was running it was because Draconic Rage seemed to be harnessing the breath weapon of a dragon and turning it into magical rage energy damage. Draconic Rage seems like an ability that generates magical rage damage. A golem's magic immunity seems to indicate they are immune to magical abilities meaning abilities that generate magical damage or effects.
Now I would rate Draconic Rage as the best of the instincts if it is not affected by magic immunity. I'm still not convinced it works as some on here have illustrated, but I have been sufficiently convinced if I run it this way it falls into the "too bad to rule that way" category.
Same reason I let someone convince me to run Hardness as resist all because if shield hardness is based on aggregate damage, shields become even less worth using for blocking than they already are as you level.