Wandering Monsters - Golems

Wandering Monsters - Construction Ahead

This didn't seem to make it into the News threads. New article on all things Golem.

Golems are actually highly combat resistant, not just magically resistant. They can be affected by magic and they can be affected by hit point damage, but neither of those are their weakness. Their weakness is that they are not capable of reprogramming themselves like a living creature could when facing new threats. They only operate upon the orders they were given.

Now if the controller of a Golem is around to give them orders they are a more fearsome threat. But, in general, they are the unstoppable force that is largely immune to most threats. They are vastly more easily avoided than confronted. In fact, if the controller is around, go after them and just delay the Golem however possible.

Normally, the more combat resistant the material of a Golem is made up by, the more magically resistant it is too. They are literally made of stuff like stone, so attacking one with swords, axes, and arrows is just going to ruin your weapons and barely affect the Golem.

Nor can these guys be reasoned with. They aren't big talkers any vocals being preprogrammed in. So a cleric isn't going to be able to convert them or thief bluff them through lies. They are probably most easily tricked into falling off a cliff instead - which they'll likely survive and keep hunting you, if that's what they are programmed to do.

The only major speed bump in the article is the animating force, the spirit of the Earth Elemental. I'm guessing that's some 2E leftover as they made a number of miscues during that time. The thing is, a Golem has no spirit, no soul, no animating force. That's really their whole deal, just look it up in the encyclopedia. They are magically created machines. They are the Terminator. "That terminator is out there. It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead."

In this case, Intelligence is actually a programming limiter rather than the current programming the Golem has. All of the knowledge map and strategies indicated by their INT score is imparted to them by their creator's.

Lastly, it is possible to bind a spirit with any object in D&D. In fact, that's a lot of the rationale behind magic items, especially Intelligent ones. So, while it is possible that Golems can have a spirit bound to them, I'd warn that it is not the de facto definition.

EDIT: Also, what's becoming clear from the article comments section is the Magic System is still largely undefined, so substance-based Golem immunities and weaknesses are appearing nonsensical or, at worst, dogmatic. I'd rather not have the Magic system something set in stone for every game (shades of AD&D again), but examples do need to be provided, at least ones that match up with the monster examples - like Golems.

If you go with the "No magic is required" for a campaign - no magic classes or items - then you could still create these guys, just treat them more as actual robots. Charge them with Lightning or something. Let it zap foes as well as be point of combat weakness.

Honestly I see a lot of ways golems and constructs in general can go. I don't understand why all iron golems are 12 feet tall. Giants are a race, and therefore it makes sense for them all to be in a certain range but constructs personally created and crafted by wizards (especially fleshy ones) don't necessarily have to be a single standard size. Also don't get why the related EACH golem to a giant. One or two would be fine, but why relate all to giants? I liked that comment about clay golems being dwarflike in their stature.

Back to the height: State that stone giants are typically over 8 feet tall, or give a range like 8-12 feet. Or just say that the height, weight and SHAPE are all defined by the creator. Why can't giant lions be golems. Why do dwarven stone golems stand 9.5 feet tall, just like ones made by humans?

Seems like too much standardization for something that should, IMO, be a more personal endeavor. It is like specifying the size and shape of each lich's phylactery. The pieces or magical components of it can be the same, but the form the phylactery takes should be more personal.

I also didn't like the elemental spirit bit. Suppose, I don't like the elemental plane of earth in my games why should that line be the default? Why is it even needed, it doesn't really add anything or explain the reason why it is moving around any more than why a sword which is on fire is capable of being on fire.. or does that need an elemental fire spirit too?

Also, anyone remember the shield guardians from 3.5? Seems like they are legit golems now too. I have no problems with that actually, I just wonder if they'll be separate still. And if they'll require the necklace.

I think what Tovec is looking for is a golem template to be applied to any base creature. I second that thought, and add that I hope we see templates of some sort make a return in DDN.

Keep in mind, though, that these are just the most prolific of golems. If a schematic tells you how to build a treadmill, you could try to build a stair-climber instead, but you would need more knowledge and understanding of how to modify that to your own ends.

Tovec said:

I also didn't like the elemental spirit bit. Suppose, I don't like the elemental plane of earth in my games why should that line be the default? Why is it even needed, it doesn't really add anything or explain the reason why it is moving around any more than why a sword which is on fire is capable of being on fire.. or does that need an elemental fire spirit too?

Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure the elemental spirit thing goes back to 1e or maybe even earlier.

malcolm_n said:

I think what Tovec is looking for is a golem template to be applied to any base creature. I second that thought, and add that I hope we see templates of some sort make a return in DDN.

Click to expand...

Actually not exactly where I was going with it. But it is true that I do think that is true.

Keep in mind, though, that these are just the most prolific of golems. If a schematic tells you how to build a treadmill, you could try to build a stair-climber instead, but you would need more knowledge and understanding of how to modify that to your own ends.

Click to expand...

Nowhere in that (linked) description did I see anything about instructions on how to make a golem..?

Also, assuming you were given basic instructions on how to make a treadmill, but not pieces (a la Ikea), and you had to find, mill/fabricate the pieces and then assemble. You might end up with something that people can run on and get exercise, but I doubt very much they would have the exact same kind of dimensions, nor fabricated the exact same ways, as my treadmill which I created the instructions with in the first place.

Assuming the instructions are more a recipe, I don't see why people couldn't experiment or alter the creature to fit them more perfectly. A lot of these kinds of changes would fall under new creature catergory, or adding some kind of template or alteration to a base creature.. but I just don't see why dwarven ancestral golems would be the same as egyptian inspired statue golems. Twelve feet tall and strength appropriate to a specific (race of) giant(s).

With all that said, I don't think clay golems should be affected differently than already stated by those specific spells. Assuming there are some set of instructions, I assume people can follow them close enough to get similar results. I disagree HOW similar those results should be if you are required to craft all the parts personally and then fit them together. A sleep spell works on ANY humanoid (barring immunities of course) but iron golems only come in one size and shape? It isn't just a default, with variation. If it were the "over X feet" or "generally certain shape" or even the "X to Y range" of height/weight makes more sense as far as a description goes. Those variants aren't unusual, they are societal. If the "default" isn't necessarily default then it should be described differently.

It just struck me as odd or inexact. Once again, even with my minor objections I don't really find much fault with the proposed idea. I rated it fairly highly on the poll (as I usually do).

the Jester said:

I'm pretty sure the elemental spirit thing goes back to 1e or maybe even earlier.

Click to expand...

That is fair. I understand older touches like that exist in a lot of descriptions. Good eye for catching it, if that is where it comes from.

My question is that what does that explanation add if it hasn't been around since 1e? If 3 other editions have had no other mentions of a earth spirit to give the golems life, is it still necessary? If it doesn't add anything, is it included only to give people who knew the 1e version something to squeal over?

More importantly, if it doesn't add anything should it still be included? I can even reverse that and say; if it IS included then I think it should add something. Even if we choose to ignore or change it. Similarly, they could go back to the jewish telling of the golem for inspiration and use that as a stock description. It can in that case be thrown out as easily or refluffed as needed - as I'm sure the WotC definition will be. I just wonder what value the "earth spirit" adds.

Very glad to see that 3E's nonsense of blanket immunities for undead and constructs is gone. Made no sense for game balance or fiction reasons.

Heck, based on the usual fiction, if anything, Zombies should have been immune to non-critical hits...


The magic immunity, though, I'm not so sure about. Seems like a really bizarre thing to have universal to all golems, tradition aside. Is it actually based on some existing fiction, or was it just a feeble attempt to reign in casters in editions where they otherwise reigned supreme? Because otherwise, they just seem like magic robots, and I don't get why that would make them immune to magic.

As long as magic and martial are generally balanced (and Next is a failure if they aren't), then there's no reason to have "screw casters" monsters, and I think the blanket immunity should go away just as the critical hit immunity goes away. Have specific immunities/vulnerabilities, sure, but I really don't see why an Iron Golem should be immune to Disintegrate, for example.

Tovec said:

My question is that what does that explanation add if it hasn't been around since 1e? If 3 other editions have had no other mentions of a earth spirit to give the golems life, is it still necessary? If it doesn't add anything, is it included only to give people who knew the 1e version something to squeal over?

More importantly, if it doesn't add anything should it still be included? I can even reverse that and say; if it IS included then I think it should add something. Even if we choose to ignore or change it. Similarly, they could go back to the jewish telling of the golem for inspiration and use that as a stock description. It can in that case be thrown out as easily or refluffed as needed - as I'm sure the WotC definition will be. I just wonder what value the "earth spirit" adds.

Click to expand...

Well, I wouldn't bet $100 on it, but I'm pretty sure the elemental spirit thingie has received at least passing mention in every edition from 1e on up.

Regardless, though, that is hardly the point- that doesn't address your question. I'd say that, for many campaigns, it doesn't add a thing.

However.

The thing about it is, a lot of long-running campaigns seize little bits of D&D minutiae like this and run with them. Somewhere, some group is playing a game that they've been playing for eight, ten, twenty years where the elemental spirit line DOES matter. So, to me, anyway, the real question becomes not "What does this add?" but "What would taking it out add?"

If it doesn't improve things- and honestly, I don't see how it would- all taking a little flavor out does is genericize the monster and make it harder for that group where the elemental spirits matter to convert to 5e (or whatever version of the game).

2e, until fairly late in its lifespan, disregarded a lot of D&D history (e.g. demons and devils and their like), even though those elements had been pretty central in a lot of campaigns and even in some major adventure arcs (just imagine the GDQ series with no references to demons- uhhh, what??). This was one of the edition's least popular elements, at least from the groups I played with or talked to. Note that demons and devils and the rest all came back with a vengeance, and long before the end of 2e. Even the words "demon" and "devil" started to sneak back in, at least here and there and in some ads (remember "What the hell is a baatezu??"). Likewise, 4e ignored a lot of D&D history- suddenly succubi were devils, for instance- in favor of a more self-contained and consistent world. But making the "core D&D world" more consistent at the cost of telling people that their campaigns' histories, and some important elements of them such as that year-long run in the Abyss against the demon queen Malcanthet and her succubi demon lackeys, were now in contradiction to core game elements, was putting the game system ahead of the game people were playing. It was, IMHO, a huge mistake in 2e and again in 4e. Clearly, the 5e designers have realized that change for the sake of change is only going to alienate people who have invested in the "old version" in their campaigns (in other words, making the succubus a devil doesn't work if their demonic nature has been a major campaign element, and a significant rewrite of the planes is only going to aggravate Planescape players and make them turn up their noses).

Gah... I'm all kinds of long-winded today!

TL;DR version- If it's tradition, changing it WILL alienate some existing gamers, especially if that element (the elemental spirit animating golems) has been important in their campaign. There ought to be a far better reason than "Well, it doesn't add anything to my game" to make a flavor change like that- especially as the flavor does no harm.

Personally, I think 4e's biggest strength was not being afraid to create new, or rearrange old, fluff. Having played since 1977, it was quite refreshing to get something different and thinly framed out to detail or not how I chose to do so, instead of getting yet another regurgitation of "canon". I found it very much in the spirit of OD&D games of my youth when these were just ideas and a few proper names to give some depth, or ignore totally at the DM's whim,.and not the official backstory for all who play D&D to "abide by" since Ad&D was released.

I have always changed anything I do not like, but the more the core rules dictate how each DMs world should operate (and how things operate in his/her world) the more the game suffers. Save all that heavy story that ties into the world/monster mechanics for published settings and the people who enjoy them. Otherwise keep it simple. I have been really miffed about how WOTC has been trying to weave alot of fluff into monsters and their origins, etc (minotaurs for example). I wish they instead would take a lighter handed approach ala the way the Deities have been done in the recent playtest pack (cleric section). "Here is the Deity of Justice, in Norse or Faeruns mythos, this is Tyr, in X, it is Z, i n Y it is..". And leave it at that. I do not want or need the whole story of Baphomet in a MM entry on Minotaurs, or a sermon on the Blood War in the Vrock's. Save it for the MOTP.

Sorry if that seems rantish, just a subject that strikes a nerve with me.

I like the depiction of golems and mentioning the controlling spirit being elemental, but I wish they'd left off it had to be from Elemental Earth. We could get some interesting variants if different spirits could be the controlling force behind a golem. Perhaps Earth's big thing could have been spell resistance/immunity. Air-powered golems might be swift. A stone golem with a fire spirit might have magma for blood... and so on.