D&D 5E Clay Golem HP Drain

[the Jester]

it's a nasty, kind of "gotcha-ish" trait that should not exist in 5E.

I strongly disagree. There should be surprises for the pcs from time to time. They shouldn't know everything about every foe they might face. I love the return of actual resource management beyond healing surges and "how can we spend five minutes resting?".

Getting rid of "gotchas" means no more lurkers above, mimics, succubi, cloakers, doppelgangers, shapechanged oni, shapechanged dragons, shapechanged fiends, shapechanged anything, gelatinous cubes, traps and tricks.

Screw that! I mean, it may work for you, and that's fine, but let's just say that it definitely doesn't suit my playstyle.

 

[Remathilis]

Which still hinges on the game designers not realizing that a party might not have access to greater restoration.

Well jeez, I guess we'll have to get rid of all creatures that can cause disease, poison, ability drain, or HP drain because some group somewhere can't be bothered to at least one cleric, paladin, druid, ranger, or bard. We should probably get rid of petrification and curses as well. Heck, we should get rid of death: not every group is going to have access to Revivify/Raise Dead et all.

I mean, I'm paying for 330 pages of monsters I can use, ain't I? If I want monsters I can't use to play D&D, I've got a lot better options than buying the MM. Who knows how prominent these "surprise, you can't heal from this effect because your party doesn't have a cleric/druid/healybard" kinds of results are?

There are plenty of monsters you can still use. No DM uses EVERY monster! (I'm going on 15+ years of D&D and never used a gorgon or catoblepas). If your party lacks a dedicated healer, either choose monsters with abilities they can handle or teach them with pain to play a healer. Don't give me the "I should be able to defeat every monster in the Monster Manual in a straight up fight" line. That kind of thinking turned the raksasha in 4e into a cat-headed doppelganger rather than the immortal spirit immune to nearly all mundane forms of death it was famous for.

But since we haven't seen anything about treasure distribution in 5e, that can only be a guess, and it's always possible that they just felt for some reason like it was OK to FUBAR your game for a few weeks because you used a golem and no one had a greater restoration on them. Can't say I follow their logic if that's the case...

If your story is so precious and scripted that backtracking to heal ruins it...

 

[I'm A Banana]

Well jeez, I guess we'll have to get rid of all creatures that can cause disease, poison, ability drain, or HP drain because some group somewhere can't be bothered to at least one cleric, paladin, druid, ranger, or bard. We should probably get rid of petrification and curses as well. Heck, we should get rid of death: not every group is going to have access to Revivify/Raise Dead et all.

We should have ways for all parties, regardless of class makeup, to access necessary restorative abilities, yes. 4e still needed a HP-healer, but largely eradicated the need for condition removal, and this was presumably part of its "you don't need a cleric!" agenda (an agenda I fully agree with, even if I don't think 4e went quite far enough). 5e put back in lasting conditions (like this and like the ones you mention), and got rid of strict roles, and those two should combine into letting people of any class get rid of lasting conditions. If only clerics and druids and certain kinds of bards could recover damage from a clay golem attack, that would be contra to some of the overall stated goals of 5e. Which is why I imagine that magic items are where we'll see folks of any class able to get rid of lasting conditions, and that default 5e presumes the use of magic items and includes an option to get rid of them (which is a fine way to thread that needle).

There are plenty of monsters you can still use. No DM uses EVERY monster! (I'm going on 15+ years of D&D and never used a gorgon or catoblepas). If your party lacks a dedicated healer, either choose monsters with abilities they can handle or teach them with pain to play a healer. Don't give me the "I should be able to defeat every monster in the Monster Manual in a straight up fight" line. That kind of thinking turned the raksasha in 4e into a cat-headed doppelganger rather than the immortal spirit immune to nearly all mundane forms of death it was famous for.

That's not my line. My line is "I shouldn't need to play D&D with kid gloves on because my party doesn't have access to one particular specific spell, regardless of my monster choices."

If your story is so precious and scripted that backtracking to heal ruins it...

...or if it doesn't involve 9th level clerics who are freely available at the drop of a hat, or if it's on a timer where every second counts, or if someone's moving in three weeks and I want to end on a big fight and not a side-quest-to-end-a-condition, or lots of things.

 

[Remathilis]

We should have ways for all parties, regardless of class makeup, to access necessary restorative abilities, yes. 4e still needed a HP-healer, but largely eradicated the need for condition removal, and this was presumably part of its "you don't need a cleric!" agenda (an agenda I fully agree with, even if I don't think 4e went quite far enough). 5e put back in lasting conditions (like this and like the ones you mention), and got rid of strict roles, and those two should combine into letting people of any class get rid of lasting conditions. If only clerics and druids and certain kinds of bards could recover damage from a clay golem attack, that would be contra to some of the overall stated goals of 5e. Which is why I imagine that magic items are where we'll see folks of any class able to get rid of lasting conditions, and that default 5e presumes the use of magic items and includes an option to get rid of them (which is a fine way to thread that needle).

Five out of twelve classes can remove common afflictions (lesser restoration). That's nearly half the PHB. A quarter of them can remove greater afflictions. That's fine. I don't see a need to give fighter's cure disease or rogue's remove poison.

And yeah, magic items are a fine way of threading that needle (I imagine potions and scrolls will be great treasure to hand out when necessary.)

That's not my line. My line is "I shouldn't need to play D&D with kid gloves on because my party doesn't have access to one particular specific spell, regardless of my monster choices."

*Shrug* When one of them dies from permanent HP drain, he can roll up a healer. Either they conform to your "I will use whatever monster I want" playstyle or you conform to their "I will play whatever I want, damn the roles!" playstyle.

Or maybe if they encounter said golem, they realize that thing can seriously [mess] them up and they don't engage the dang thing in melee! Lure it into an ambush, use ranged spells and attacks, push it down a pit, or trap it behind a door and push a boulder in front of it. Maybe if they realize they can't heal poison, disease of permanent hp drain, they will find different tactics other than "CHARGE!"

...or if it doesn't involve 9th level clerics who are freely available at the drop of a hat, or if it's on a timer where every second counts, or if someone's moving in three weeks and I want to end on a big fight and not a side-quest-to-end-a-condition, or lots of things.

Again, are you going to compromise your world-building and have mid-level priests available to sell you a restoration for gold in the interest of saving time, are you going to compromise your story to keep the verisimilitude of not having easy access to healing, or are you going to compromise your options in monsters to keep the game running smoothly between those first two parameters? Pick the lesser of three evils.

But leave those options for DMs like me who want them. I don't want PCs sauntering up to any old mummy, golem or ooze and expecting they can win purely because those monsters can't do lasting harm.

 

[ExploderWizard]

So, the Clay Golem's hit point drain on its slam attacks doesn't come back with a rest like other hit point drain abilities we've seen, requiring a restoration or such.

How does the EN World community feel about this?

Does it require a restoration from a 17th level or higher cleric?

If not then you got the weaksauce version kid.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Five out of twelve classes can remove common afflictions (lesser restoration). That's nearly half the PHB. A quarter of them can remove greater afflictions. That's fine. I don't see a need to give fighter's cure disease or rogue's remove poison.

Ah, then our disagreement may be more fundamental, because any time I sit around the table for the first session of a new party and we have the talk about how someone "has to play the X", I have a little sad at the lack of imagination in the game and the limitations we're placing on the players. If someone has to play the healer in 5e by default, that sucks a little. And it's also not called out anywhere, so, um, I hope newbies don't screw it up?

Fighters don't need cure disease, but why shouldn't they be able to use the Medicine skill to treat it? Certainly plenty of fighters know basic medicine and anatomy, they know what infection and illness look like. Rogues don't need to remove poison, but why can't....well, why can't they use the Medicine skill to treat it? Surely our assassins are familiar with the various toxins and antitoxins their trade traffics in. It needn't be magical, and it needn't be as effective as magic, but it should be doable.

And yeah, magic items are a fine way of threading that needle (I imagine potions and scrolls will be great treasure to hand out when necessary.)

My only concern with this is that 5e needs to "make sure" a 9th level party can get their paws on whatever magic item gives greater restoration, ideally without the DM coming in and deux-ex-machina-ing the whole affair. Aside from buying and selling magic items (which I don't imagine they want to do), I don't rightly know how they might ensure that this is something a player can reasonably expect to be able to acquire without the DM being forced to do much of anything. Because I'm lazy and uninterested in fixing the hole myself.

*Shrug* When one of them dies from permanent HP drain, he can roll up a healer. Either they conform to your "I will use whatever monster I want" playstyle or you conform to their "I will play whatever I want, damn the roles!" playstyle.

Or maybe if they encounter said golem, they realize that thing can seriously [mess] them up and they don't engage the dang thing in melee! Lure it into an ambush, use ranged spells and attacks, push it down a pit, or trap it behind a door and push a boulder in front of it. Maybe if they realize they can't heal poison, disease of permanent hp drain, they will find different tactics other than "CHARGE!"

I want to be able to use any (non-legendary) monster against any party and not worry overly much about unintentionally crippling characters because they happen to lack some specific resource. I don't know why my party of 2 barbarians and a cavalier aren't allowed to use their CHARGE hammer on every nail that present itself and still be able to come back after the fight's over. Is default 5e such a game as to secretly require that you play it a particular way and not state that up front? Because what we've seen so far is not a 5e I can use like that (though I imagine some unseen part of it might address this).

Again, are you going to compromise your world-building and have mid-level priests available to sell you a restoration for gold in the interest of saving time, are you going to compromise your story to keep the verisimilitude of not having easy access to healing, or are you going to compromise your options in monsters to keep the game running smoothly between those first two parameters? Pick the lesser of three evils.

I shouldn't have to. I should be able to have all the monsters in a believable world without mid-level priests running around. I am not asking for the USS Enterprise and a free Mercedes. This seems like a reasonable request form my D&D game. It's certainly something I could do with 4e. Hell, I'd have trouble using that monster in an Eberron game, what with its assumptions of exceptional mid-level characters.

But leave those options for DMs like me who want them. I don't want PCs sauntering up to any old mummy, golem or ooze and expecting they can win purely because those monsters can't do lasting harm.

I'm not proposing changing the golem, I'm assuming that they've already "fixed" this because of a subsystem we haven't seen all of yet. And if they HAVEN'T, I still wouldn't propose changing the golem, I'd just propose some more accessible way to also counter-act the otherwise irrevocable harm it can do than one specific spell or DM's optional shenanigans. The problem isn't the ability itself, it is the fact that it never, ever, gets fixed, unless you do this one specific thing. I don't like being forced through a gaming bottleneck like that.

 

[Remathilis]

Ah, then our disagreement may be more fundamental, because any time I sit around the table for the first session of a new party and we have the talk about how someone "has to play the X", I have a little sad at the lack of imagination in the game and the limitations we're placing on the players. If someone has to play the healer in 5e by default, that sucks a little. And it's also not called out anywhere, so, um, I hope newbies don't screw it up?

Three editions ago, you HAD to have someone be a Cleric* and a Thief because no other class could disarm traps or heal. Two editions ago, you could branch beyond those two classes for those roles using supplemental material (favored soul, scout, etc). One edition ago, you had a dozen leader classes (two in the PHB) and anyone with Thievery as a class skill could disarm traps. The current edition allows for five healers in the PHB and anyone with the proper background or 250 days of training can disarm traps. I consider that a giant win.

And the healer roll is a universal element of modern computer/video games. Nearly every party-based RPG allows for it, every MMO has it, and its even found in non-genre like Medics in First-Person shooters. I'll wager most new players know they need someone who can heal (or will learn quickly).

So yes, I like roles because of niche protection. If any class can heal, pick a lock, swing a sword or cast a spell, why have classes anymore?

Fighters don't need cure disease, but why shouldn't they be able to use the Medicine skill to treat it? Certainly plenty of fighters know basic medicine and anatomy, they know what infection and illness look like. Rogues don't need to remove poison, but why can't....well, why can't they use the Medicine skill to treat it? Surely our assassins are familiar with the various toxins and antitoxins their trade traffics in. It needn't be magical, and it needn't be as effective as magic, but it should be doable.

Agreed. The medicine skill in 5e is a real shame. I'd like to see it beefed up more. Still, the healer feat and proficiency in herbalist kit does grant some access to non-magical healing. I'd love to see some of the restoration spells become rituals so that ritual caster is an option too.

My only concern with this is that 5e needs to "make sure" a 9th level party can get their paws on whatever magic item gives greater restoration, ideally without the DM coming in and deux-ex-machina-ing the whole affair. Aside from buying and selling magic items (which I don't imagine they want to do), I don't rightly know how they might ensure that this is something a player can reasonably expect to be able to acquire without the DM being forced to do much of anything. Because I'm lazy and uninterested in fixing the hole myself.

The DMs job to facilitate fair challenge. If your team lacks a healer, the DM needs to step in and "deux-es-machina" a wand, scroll, or potion if he intends to use status-afflicting monsters. Or don't, but then don't whine when your PCs die.

I want to be able to use any (non-legendary) monster against any party and not worry overly much about unintentionally crippling characters because they happen to lack some specific resource. I don't know why my party of 2 barbarians and a cavalier aren't allowed to use their CHARGE hammer on every nail that present itself and still be able to come back after the fight's over. Is default 5e such a game as to secretly require that you play it a particular way and not state that up front? Because what we've seen so far is not a 5e I can use like that (though I imagine some unseen part of it might address this).

THIS is the fundamental difference: I don't. I don't give a flying fig if my fire-mage player whines because I threw a fire-elemental at him. Anyone stupid enough to charge a clay golem without a healer deserves a permanent HP reduction. I'm not even a RBDM; but I DO think that not every encounter needs to be winnable based on your HP alone. A PC lacking a specific resource (a healer, a magic sword, a lock-picker, etc) then that group needs to find some way to compensate for it.

Smart play for me is a critical element: If I can win every fight by charging into melee and having more HP than the opponent, the game is going to go to boring mode ASAP.

I shouldn't have to. I should be able to have all the monsters in a believable world without mid-level priests running around. I am not asking for the USS Enterprise and a free Mercedes. This seems like a reasonable request form my D&D game. It's certainly something I could do with 4e. Hell, I'd have trouble using that monster in an Eberron game, what with its assumptions of exceptional mid-level characters.

Clay Golems are CR 9. That means, the earliest a group should encounter them is 9th level. Its not like they are goblin-level common nor are they meant for low-level parties. A clay golem might not be guarding a house in Sharn, but I could certainly see one in a forgotten Xen-drik tomb; the inability to heal its damage is probably the REASON it's been able to safely guard that treasure for thousand's of years.

And if you game lacks mid-level clerics, it probably lacks clay golems too (in 3e, you needed to be an 11th level priest to even make one. It was higher in AD&D) so its a self-solving problem!

I'm not proposing changing the golem, I'm assuming that they've already "fixed" this because of a subsystem we haven't seen all of yet. And if they HAVEN'T, I still wouldn't propose changing the golem, I'd just propose some more accessible way to also counter-act the otherwise irrevocable harm it can do than one specific spell or DM's optional shenanigans. The problem isn't the ability itself, it is the fact that it never, ever, gets fixed, unless you do this one specific thing. I don't like being forced through a gaming bottleneck like that.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say (barring optional rules) that What You See is What You Get. We know what spells each class gets. We know what skills and mundane items do. We know what the monster's write-up says. (And its the only Life-drain creature that doesn't restore permanent Hp loss on a long rest that I've seen, meaning I think its intentional). All we haven't seen is magic item use/creation. Make of that what you will.

Meanwhile, I like this guy. I can't wait to use him now.

 

[Primal]

I disagree. Such traits should be rare, but not non-existent. How do the players know that golems have immunities? Through direct experience. Players should be surprised on occasion, and forced to retreat to reconsider/research their options. Again, not often--but sometimes.

I think that's better left for high-tier monsters. Yet the clay golem is a mid-level challenge (CR 9), and I'd hate to see golf bags return to 5E. AFAIK there are more than a handful of monsters that are immune to non-magical and non-silver/adamantine (and perhaps other materials as well, e.g. cold iron?) weapons. IMO total immunity to damage was frustrating back in AD&D, and I still find it extremely annoying and frustrating. I'm not getting any younger, and these days I often have to travel 500 miles to play, so I kind of take it personally if I'm killed in the first encounter because I "played badly" (i.e. failed to carry a golf bag of weapons to the dungeon).

Damage reduction 10/X can be handled; the characters are at a disadvantage, but it's doable. Immunity isn't, because you need a certain kind of a weapon to defeat the monster, and it grinds the action to a halt. It's annoying for the players and the DM, if the characters leave the dungeon to go shopping for magical adamantine weapons just to defeat a single monster -- unless the adventure has a scripted bypass option (e.g. knocking the golem into a pit or something).

I don't think it's good design, and I honestly think quite a many players will not be thrilled about this. In my group the fighter would just ask the wizard: "Once again it's your time to shine .. can you do it, or do we leave to go shopping for weapons in Waterdeep?".

 

[Boarstorm]

In my group the fighter would just ask the wizard: "Once again it's your time to shine .. can you do it, or do we leave to go shopping for weapons in Waterdeep?".

I think a better question would be, "Will you cast Magic Weapon on this?"

 

[Primal]

5e's wording for Weapon Immunity/Resistance is very wonky.

Most creatures take damage normally from all types of weapons. Some creatures with "mystical" defenses (like devils, vampires, and lycanthropes) require a magical OR silver weapon, and some "extreme hardness" (like gargoyles and golems) require a magical OR adamantine. In some rare cases, only magical weapons will do (raksashas, liches, etc)

In all cases, a plain +1 weapon beats their resistance/immunity; silver or adamantine is just an additional non-magical (and perhaps purchasable) way to fight them.

Yeah, I get that any +1 weapon counts as magical to bypass immunity. However, several different material requirements for weapons means that the "golf bag syndrome" will be present in the game, at least to a degree. As I said in my reply to Mouseferatu, I don't like that my fighter has *zero* chance to damage a creature in combat... sheesh, that's supposed to be his *SHTICK*. Unless, of course, he's carrying a whole bag of cold iron, silver and adamantine weapons, preferably all magical. What happened to their promise that magical items are not mandatory in 5E?