Golem and Dispel magic

[Pielorinho]

Why waste a Dispel Magic when Grease works so well.

If the golem fails its save, do its arms pinwheel comically before it falls?

The "item but not an object" rule doesn't satisfy me, personally; I'm satisfied that it behaves in many ways as a magic item without being a magic item. Common sense: item=object.

I behave in many ways as a lawyer; doesn't mean I'm a lawyer.

Daniel

 

[Infiniti2000]

From the glossary definition of [glossary]creature[/glossary]:
A living or otherwise active being, not an object. The terms "creature" and "character" are sometimes used interchangeably.

Since a golem is a creature, it is by definition not an object.

Ah, that's a good one.

Su abilities are not dispelled by dispel magic, but they are magical properties; therefore if something's magical properties are suppressed, it will be unable to activate those Su abilities until no longer suppressed.

That's a non-sequitur. You can't say "if something's magical properties are suppressed" when the spell you are suggesting that suppresses the magical properties can't, in fact, do that. You can't ignore the fact that dispel magic will not, under any circumstances, suppress Su abilities.

If the golem fails its save, do its arms pinwheel comically before it falls?

That's the RAW for every creature.

 

[Hypersmurf]

The "item but not an object" rule doesn't satisfy me, personally; I'm satisfied that it behaves in many ways as a magic item without being a magic item.

But it behaves as a magic item due to its 'nature as a magic item'.

Can you act according to your 'nature as a lawyer' without being a lawyer?

-Hyp.

 

[Infiniti2000]

But it behaves as a magic item due to its 'nature as a magic item'.

So, does this mean that you've proven that not all magic items are objects? In fact, intelligent longswords are therefore not objects, right?

 

[Hypersmurf]

That's a non-sequitur. You can't say "if something's magical properties are suppressed" when the spell you are suggesting that suppresses the magical properties can't, in fact, do that. You can't ignore the fact that dispel magic will not, under any circumstances, suppress Su abilities.

Now, where is that stated?

Dispel: Can dispel magic and similar spells dispel the effects of abilities of that type?

The answer for Su abilities is 'No'.

But I'm not talking about dispelling the effects of an ability.

Let's say I have a magic harmonica that can Daze people for 5 rounds as a Su ability. If you're Dazed, Dispel Magic can't end the effect - it can't dispel the effects of a Su ability.

But if someone casts Dispel Magic on the harmonica, and it becomes a non-magical object for 4 rounds, I cannot in that time daze anyone else, because I can't activate the magical property while it's suppressed.

There's a big difference between dispelling the effects of the harmonica, and suppressing the magical properties of the harmonica.

-Hyp.

 

[Hypersmurf]

So, does this mean that you've proven that not all magic items are objects? In fact, intelligent longswords are therefore not objects, right?

Strictly, that's correct.

-Hyp.

 

[Goolpsy]

doesn't hte Dispell just slow the Golem?

 

[ElectricDragon]

They are creatures, and they are items.

"The characteristics of a golem that come from its nature as a magic item (caster level, prerequisite feats and spells, market price, cost to create) are given in summary form at the end of each golem’s description."

How can a golem have a 'nature as a magic item' if it is not a magic item?

How about this little tidbit from the spell Antimagic Field:

A normal creature can enter the area, as can normal missiles. Furthermore, while a magic sword does not function magically within the area, it is still a sword (and a masterwork sword at that). The spell has no effect on golems and other constructs that are imbued with magic during their creation process and are thereafter self-supporting (unless they have been summoned, in which case they are treated like any other summoned creatures).

This seems to say that a golem and a magic sword are treated differently because of the "creation process," that although both are magic items, the golem is "self-supporting" and the magic sword is not. Would not this hold true for M's Disjunction too? Or is this the ultimate golem destroyer? Unless the golem hides in an Antimagic Field that makes its save, of course.

Note, I am not trolling, just thought this might muddy clear the waters a little bit.

Ciao
Dave

 

[Infiniti2000]

Let's say I have a magic harmonica that can Daze people for 5 rounds as a Su ability. If you're Dazed, Dispel Magic can't end the effect - it can't dispel the effects of a Su ability.

You can't have a magic harmonica that creates Su abilities. Per the SRD: "Magic items produce spells or spell-like effects." An Su ability is neither and thus cannot exist in a magic item. This, of course, is at odds with the golem, so either a golem is not a magic item or it is an exception to this rule. Either way, your example is invalid and my previous statement stands.

 

[Pielorinho]

But it behaves as a magic item due to its 'nature as a magic item'.

Can you act according to your 'nature as a lawyer' without being a lawyer?

-Hyp.

If I'm speaking without precision, sure. I find it far more reasonable to believe that the rules were written without requisite precision in this case than to believe that the rules are written with great precision, intentionally creating such tortured syntax.

Daniel