Pathfinder 1E Construct spells (anyone used these?)

[brunswick]

Hiya folks,

A player in my game has asked me to take a look at these spells and make a ruling on how I want to handle them.

The first one (Apparent Master) is from the "Guardians of Dragonfall" Paizo adventure and the second one (Malfunction), comes from "Ultimate Magic".

As the player rightly points out, these spells shouldnt actually be able to affect constructs (not to mention that "Malfunction" apparently comes from the non-existent "Transformation" school, presumably a typo).

Have you experienced these spells in your games and, if so, how did you handle them? If you didnt experience these spells in your game before, also, how would you handle them?

I'm thinking of suggesting that we take the spells at face value and say that they, as exceptions, DO affect constructs, with the stated Saving Throw and SR (if applicable) as given in the spell text. I'm just a little baffled as to why the writers of the scenario and rulebook didnt explicitly state that these spells override the usual rules as regards Construct Immunities.

Here are the spells in question:
Apparent Master

School enchantment; Level bard 4, sorcerer/wizard 5 Casting Time 1 standard action Components V, S Range Close (25 ft. +5 ft./2 levels) Target One construct; see text Duration 1 hour/level Saving Throw Will negates; Spell Resistance Yes

DESCRIPTION
This charm makes a construct regard you as its master. The spell only affects mindless constructs that are attuned to the commands of a master, such as animated objects, golems, retrievers, and shield guardians. All constructs with Intelligence scores, even those that explicitly follow the commands of their creator, such as an homunculus, are unaffected. If the construct is currently being threatened or attacked by you or your allies it receives a +5 bonus on its saving throw.
The spell enables you to control the construct completely, with the sole exception that commands directly resulting in damage break the spell. Any act by you or your apparent allies that damages the construct also breaks the spell. You can communicate your commands in any spoken language. The construct reverts to obeying the last commands given by its true master when the spell’s duration expires. If the construct’s true master attempts to command a construct affected by apparent master, you must win an opposed Charisma check for the construct to continue to follow your commands. Failing this check breaks the spell.Malfunction

Malfunction

School transformation; Level sorcerer/wizard 4
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S
Range close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Area one construct
Duration 1 round/level (D)
Saving Throw Fortitude negates; Spell Resistance yes
This functions as confusion, except it only affects constructs, and instead of babbling incoherently, the construct takes no actions on its turn (but may still make attacks of opportunity).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your opinions please,

Thanks,



Bruns.

 

[Thugorp]

It would seem that the spells do explicitly state that they affect constructs. So yes, I would allow them to affect constructs.

 

[Kinak]

I think the intent is pretty clear that they'd effect constructs, so I'd definitely allow them to.

That said, many would still be immune (due to golem magic immunity), so I'm not sure how useful they'd actually be.

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[dellboy]

l am the player in question who inquired about the spells, they are worded very badly and in there current form pretty useless againest most constructs except animated objects.

Couple of things l noticed and why l asked for clarification was if you look at apparent master it mentions it effects golems ect but it also states it effects shield guardians, now shield guardians can only be true golems and all true golems are immune to any spell that allows spell resistance so something is wrong there.

Add to the fact the spells are level 4 and level 5 respectively if they don't effect true golems they are far to high a level to be usefull, your sacrificing a spell slot of 4th or 5th level on the random chance you will meet a golem, other than constructs they have no effect and your hampering your spell list on a possible encounter, ok if you knew the local bad guy had a golem pet then yes they are great if they worked.

My opinion on the spells are that the author of the spells in question never actually referenced golems when designing the spells, as if he had he would have certainly noticed that pretty much 85% of all contructs are immune to them and every true golem is immune simple because he added spell resistance yes. l would assume the spell resistance is a mistake on the spells as the author clearly states golems/shield guardians as possible targets for the apparent master spell.

 

[Ironhead]

I look at it as a case of something being stated (golem spell immunity) prior to the creation/invention of the exception which then makes it obsolete or untrue, rather than the author missing something that big. Personally, I like including the spells because, as an old-timer, I've grown tired of seeing all those smug spell-immune golem faces over the years