Half-golem Magic immunity

[LokiDR]

Excellent questions. This is different from SR - so I'd look instead to indirect vs. direct effects.

Wall of Force? Tough one. I'd say they can walk through because it is purely a magical effect.

Maze? Nope. Direct magical effect.

Rack to mud? Sure - the mud itself is not magical.

Maze creates and extradimentional maze around them, thus trapping them, so not direct.

Actually, the rock is magical. It is duration-permanent, which means that you can dispell the effect.

You see, we could argue back and forth on all sorts of spells. SR is clear cut.

True.

Wait, werent' you just saying you didn't want any sort of supposition? Now you agree that this discussion is based on it either way. I am becoming confused.

I said a while ago that anything you rule is perfectly legitimate because the rule isn't clear cut.

Not unreasonable, but unrelated to the root question here - "Can you voluntarily lower it?" SR rules are not really a help here, it's too different.

I need to rule Magic Immunity consistantly. SR is is a consistant resistance to magic. Magic immunity could be implemented as infinite SR that also works on supernatural abilities.

Logic does not have to apply to magic.

Should it apply to rules? Do you want rules that make sense?

Magic makes the weapon hit. You are immune to magic. The magic of the weapon shouldn't harm you. I am pointing out that the rules are flawed.

That's not unreasonable. But note I am not looking for an easy answer necessarily, merely one grouned if the rules (this is the rules forum). Much of the previous argument was not well-founded in the rules and contained statements that were clearly incorrect.

Anyway, it's nice to finally see a rules-based argument using the correct rules.

Excuse me, but I don't think we are in the same thread. I have consistantly referenced other rules to attempt construct consistant ruling for Magic Immunity. You may not agree with the interpertation, but that doesn't mean I wasn't referencing rules. There just isn't a clear rule on this.

I would say that rule magic immunity is completely different than any other ability seems to more ignorance of the rules rather than believing the ability shares some properties with abilites where it is not explicitly stated. Spell Immunity does not say it can be lowered, but the sage ruled it can, because it is based on SR. In an entirely different case, elves are immune to sleep effects, but they can suppress this if they want to, according to the sage.

Now, please site some number of immunities that can not be lowered without that fact being stated in the ability.

 

[Artoomis]

Excuse me, but I don't think we are in the same thread. I have consistantly referenced other rules to attempt construct consistant ruling for Magic Immunity. You may not agree with the interpertation, but that doesn't mean I wasn't referencing rules. There just isn't a clear rule on this.

I would say that rule magic immunity is completely different than any other ability seems to more ignorance of the rules rather than believing the ability shares some properties with abilites where it is not explicitly stated. Spell Immunity does not say it can be lowered, but the sage ruled it can, because it is based on SR.

I'll address the last point first - Spell Immunity, by definition, is like SR because it says so - it's an unbeatable SR. As for Sage ruling - well, I find none in the FAQ despite your repeated assertions.

As for my statement that your argument is now based on correct rules when it was not before, allow me to quote you:

As for lowering the magic immunity, it can be lowered. First, it is defined as a variation on SR,...

Incorrect. Magic Immunity is only defined for Golems, and is not defined as a variation on SR. This argument was not based on real rules.

Finally, I seem to recal a Sage reply saying spell imunity in general could be lowered.

Perhaps true - but Spell Immunity is defined as a type of SR, so this holds no weight. Also - where is the Sage opinion - it's not in the FAQ.

The rest of your arguments are pretty much about logic, not rules, and that's okay. It's the when one starts with faulty rules that I object.

 

[LokiDR]

I'll admit I made a mistake on Magic Immunity when I first started this discussion. A simple misinterpretation.

As for spell immunity being an effect you can lower, I mentioned it was from the Sage, not neccessarily the FAQ. SR can be lowered, and spell immunity is clearly based on SR, so the Sage doesn't even really need to be referenced in that case.

Next, you seem to only be pointing out a misinterpretation of the rules that I did (magic immunity based on SR) that I have since recanted. I have since stated that the rules in this case are vague. Do you care at all about magic immunity in this case, or just pointing out my mistakes?

My second post on this thread starts:

First, I am fairly certain that there is no offical position on this matter, so you can rule either way without resorting to "house rules". I see the matter as pretty clear, but I am not the Sage, FAQ, or one of the designers.

If you thought I was quoting rules about Magic Immunity all this time, that is a misinterpretation on your part. My very first post on this topic was solution that balanced a very effective power with a higher cost (+5 LA). Those are rules. Everything I have stated about Spell Immunity is generally accepted (being lowered) by the rules community here, as MagicRub agreed

Yes spell imunity can be lowered. Like in the case of the Nightwalker shade.

Am I being unclear, or are you being argumentative? If you just want to argue, I'm fine with that, but I don't want to think that I have led others reading this thread to the wrong conclusion about that the rules say.

And I still say the best ruling is that Magic Immunity works like Spell Immunity except where noted in the abilty. YMMV.

 

[dcollins]

For what it's worth, I agree that the Magic Immunity of golems in the core rules is distinct from Spell Resistance, and there's never been any language from the rules, SRD, FAQ, Sage, or designers that linked them. There's no reason I can see to believe that Magic Immunity is able to be switched off by the possessor.

 

[Artoomis]

For what it's worth, I agree that the Magic Immunity of golems in the core rules is distinct from Spell Resistance, and there's never been any language from the rules, SRD, FAQ, Sage, or designers that linked them. There's no reason I can see to believe that Magic Immunity is able to be switched off by the possessor.

Exactly.

There is a rules-based argument on the other side, I admit. Such an argument really should start with citing the rules in question, though. Anyway, yes, you can argue that Magic Immunity can be lowered, but it's quite a stretch. Why? Because golems are mindless (no int score) and incapable of voluntarily doing anything, and, since Magic immuty only applies to them, Magic immunity cannot be volutarily lowered. There is no reason for Magic Immunty to be able to be lowered, by the core rules.

Once you introduce half-golems, you change the playing field - at least one would think so. But, if half-golem Magic immunity works just the same as it does for golems, then it cannot be lowered.

As for adjuticating when it does and does not apply, using the SR rules is a pretty good way to go. Still, I would apply a different standard, for example, not allowing MAZE to work. Even though SR does not apply,

The character conjures up an extradimensional labyrinth of force planes, and the subject vanishes into it.

This looks to be a direct magical effect on the subject of the spell. In fact, I'm pretty sure I'd have Magic immunity apply to every spell that targets. Spells that do not target the golem might apply sometimes - I admit this can be problematical, but I'd be rather generous in not having a spell apply to the (half-) golem - it's total magic immunity, after all.

Not having magic items work for you is a small price to pay for being immune to magic.

 

[LokiDR]

Evard's Black Tentacles does is not directly cast on the character. It normally doesn't allow for spell resistance. But the tentacles ARE magical. Would you allow that to work on the golem?

Another interesting question is summoned creatures. They can be dispelled, so they are obviously there through magic. Can they harm the golem?

How about acid fog? It does allow SR, but basically just creates acid mist (conjuration - creation). Could that harm the golem?

You see, we would need to ask this question every time an effect tried to indirectly affect the Magic Immune creature. This has already been delt with, though, by the SR entry of every spell. Why not just use that?

As far as balance goes, I think you are missing several key facets:
*If you use the SR paridigm, lowering their immunity would last for a whole round. If they do this in combat for healing, they invite every spellcaster on the field to take a cheap shot.
*A fighter without some way to see invisible creatures will have lots of problems. Or would you rule the Immunity works against illusions too?
*Flying would also be a huge problem. Any wizard worth his salt should fly, or at least levitate. Sure, he can't hurt you, but he can hurt your friends and you can't do much about it.
*There is the question of a flying archer. Even if you use a bow to oppose the flying wizard, what will you do against the flying archer who can probably shoot better than you?
*There are all the times you need to run away. Magic is the only real way to do that.
*Plot creeps up with magical effect quite offten, so you can throw out anything published that uses that as a hook. No planer travel.
*I want you tell me how effectively a character can contribute to a party without magic gear. The fighters in my game complain about it all the time.


Amazingly powerful and crippled at the same time. Not a rule interpretation I would ever want to use.

 

[Artoomis]

Evard's Black Tentacles does is not directly cast on the character. It normally doesn't allow for spell resistance. But the tentacles ARE magical. Would you allow that to work on the golem?

Another interesting question is summoned creatures. They can be dispelled, so they are obviously there through magic. Can they harm the golem?

How about acid fog? It does allow SR, but basically just creates acid mist (conjuration - creation). Could that harm the golem?

You see, we would need to ask this question every time an effect tried to indirectly affect the Magic Immune creature. This has already been delt with, though, by the SR entry of every spell. Why not just use that?

For simplicity, I agree. I'd still make the exception for any spell that targets the golem as opposed to an area effect, though.

As far as balance goes, I think you are missing several key facets:
*If you use the SR paridigm, lowering their immunity would last for a whole round. If they do this in combat for healing, they invite every spellcaster on the field to take a cheap shot.
*A fighter without some way to see invisible creatures will have lots of problems. Or would you rule the Immunity works against illusions too?
*Flying would also be a huge problem. Any wizard worth his salt should fly, or at least levitate. Sure, he can't hurt you, but he can hurt your friends and you can't do much about it.
*There is the question of a flying archer. Even if you use a bow to oppose the flying wizard, what will you do against the flying archer who can probably shoot better than you?
*There are all the times you need to run away. Magic is the only real way to do that.
*Plot creeps up with magical effect quite offten, so you can throw out anything published that uses that as a hook. No planer travel.
*I want you tell me how effectively a character can contribute to a party without magic gear. The fighters in my game complain about it all the time.


Amazingly powerful and crippled at the same time. Not a rule interpretation I would ever want to use.

Your balance issues are legitimate. I could argue with most of them, but I won't bother - I'd simply not allow the half-golem template in my campaign.